Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in, the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Walsall Corporation Bill (by Order)

Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — PEACE TREATIES.

RHINELAND (RAILWAY TECHNICAL TROOPS).

Mr. LEES SMITH: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what are the functions of the body known as the Section Rh´nane which remains in the Rhineland and is made up largely of former officials of the R6gie 9,

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Austen Chamberlain): The Section Rh´nane is a battalion of railway technical troops attached to the French Army of the Rhine, and its functions are the normal functions of army railway personnel.

Mr. SMITH: Is not the retention of these railway technical troops on the Rhine now a breach of the London Agreement?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir, I think certainly not.

COLOGNE (EVACUATION).

Mr. MORRIS: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is the intention of the Allies to hear representatives of the German Government before laying down in a new note the conditions precedent to the evacuation of the Cologne zone?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: This is a matter which must be determined in due course by the Allied Governments in consultation.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman what is the view of the British Government on this matter?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think there are one or two other questions on the Paper to which I shall give the same answer, and, as regards that, if there is anything to be said on this subject, I think it will be better said in the Debate to-morrow than at Question time to-day.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a very favourable statement was made on this matter in another place yesterday?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, sir, I am aware of Lord Curzon's statement in another place; it was made, naturally, after consultation with me.

Captain BENN: Is there any reason why statements made in another place should not be given in answer to questions?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman will not take offence at my answer. I really think it will be for the convenience of the House, as we are to have a Debate on Foreign Affairs to-morrow, that. I should be allowed to deal with some of those matters then, rather than that I should attempt to deal with them under cross-examination.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Does the right. hon. Gentleman think it right, that the House of Lords, or the other place, as you are pleased to call it, should be better informed on these matters than we are here?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. I am anxious to give this House whatever information I can. Perhaps I may be permitted to add that it would have been greatly to my convenience if we could have had our Debate in this House on the same day as the Debate in the House of Lords, instead of the latter being en the day immediately preceding that on which I have to answer these questions.

INTER-ALLIED MILITARY MISSION OF CONTROL.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will have the Report of General Walsh's Inter-Allied Committee issued as a White Paper?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer the right hon. and gallant Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Middlesbrough West (Mr. T. Thomson) on the 25th February.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 18.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is yet in a position to state the nationality of the chairman of the committee appointed by the League of Nations to succeed the Inter-Allied Military Mission of Control when that body has completed its work?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Acting upon the invitation issued to him by the Council of the League of Nations at its meeting on the 9th December last, the President of the Council has made the following appointments, which are due to last for one year, for the Presidency of the League Commissions of Investigations in the four ex-enemy countries:
Major-General W. M. St. G. Kirke, C.B., C.M.G., D.S.O., of the British Army, for the Commission of Investigation in Hungary.
General Desticker, of the French Army, for the Commission of Investigation in Germany.
General Jean Marietti, of the Italian Army, for the Commission of Investigation in Austria.
Lieut.-General Carl August Hugo Jungstedt, of the Swedish Army, for the Commission of Investigation in Bulgaria.

Captain BENN: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it altogether desirable that a French General should be in command of a League investigation in Germany?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I entirely support the decision taken, at the invitation of the Council, by the President of the Council.

Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: When the right hon. Gentleman says that these appointments are for one year, is
it intended that there should be a change in the nationality of the chairman at the end of a year?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The appointment is fur one year, and it will be open to the Council to make any other appointment at the end of one year. Whether the Council will desire to do or not I am unable to say.

OCCUPIED TERRITORY (COLOURED TROOPS).

Mr. L. SMITH: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many coloured troops is France now employing in the Rhineland or other portions of occupied German territory; and what is the nationality of these coloured troops-as regards the African contingents?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I naturally cannot undertake to give precise information regarding the composition and distribution of foreign troops. I understand. however, that, while no coloured troops are employed by France in the Ruhr. there are in the Rhineland approximately 19,000. Of these, about 18,000 are natives of Algeria and Tunis, while the remainder are natives of Indo-China.

Mr. MACKINDER: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that a report reached this country recently as to a white woman being disgracefully ill-treated by some of these Moroccan troops, and will he try and get information for the House as to the accuracy of that statement?.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no information.

Oral Answers to Questions — EGYPT.

COMMUNIST MANIFESTO.

Commander BELLAIRS: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has called the attention of the Soviet Government to the manifesto concerning Egypt issued by the Communist Internationale, presided over by M. Zinovieff, in which the British air forces are accused of seeking for victims for British bombs; whether he is aware that the Egyptians are incited to wipe out the ghastly crimes committed against the Egyptian people by MacDonald's Government; and whether the Soviet Government accept the document as genuine?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have not drawn attention to this particular manifesto, but. the Soviet Government must be well aware that, so long as it maintains its connection with the Communist International and aids and abets this kind of hostile and untruthful propaganda, there can be no improvement in its relations with His Majesty's Government. The manifesto was published in the "Pravda" of the 19th December last, and its authenticity is not open to doubt.

RESERVED QUESTIONS.

Mr. CAMPBELL: 14.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any negotiations on the reserved questions are taking place between His Majesty's Government and the Egyptian Government; what subjects are being or have been dealt with; and whether any progress in the negotiations has been made?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The other two parts do not, therefore, arise. I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) on the 10th February last.

DISARMAMENT AND SECURITY.

3. Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has yet received any notification of the German Government's willingness to take part in a Conference on disarmament and security; and, if so, what action His Majesty's Government is taking?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer is in the negative, but it must not be taken to imply that the German Government would necessarily be unwilling to take part in the Conference on disarmament projected by the League of Nations whenever that Conference is held.

Captain BENN: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can make any statement as to the Government's attitude towards the proposed security pact between Great Britain, France and Germany; and what is the view of the Government as to the guaranteeing of the Eastern frontiers of Germany?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: This is a question which I had in mind the other day when I suggested that it had better be dealt with, as far as I can deal with it, in the Debate to-morrow, rather than by question and answer.

FRENCH RAILWAY FARES (REBATES).

Mr. RAMSDEN: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that the French Government are discriminating against foreigners in France in the matter of rebates on railway fares; and will he make representations to the French Government with a view to our nationals receiving equal treatment with themselves?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: His Majesty's Government have no treaty grounds on which to claim national treatment as of right, but representations have been made to the French Government for the benefits, amounting to national treatment, understood to have been granted to the nationals of another Power. The answer of the French Government has not yet been received.

Sir FREDRIC WISE: Are these rebates of large amounts?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot answer that question without notice.

BRITISH NEWSPAPER CORRESPONDENTS, ITALY.

Mr. MORRIS: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that the liberty of British newspaper correspondents is being infringed in Italy; and, if so, whether he will make representations to the Italian Government on the matter?

Mr. L. SMITH: 17.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the protest by the Foreign Press Association in Rome on 23rd February regarding the threatening attitude of the Italian Press; and whether the Government is making any representations to the Italian Government with regard to the protection of British Pressmen from attack by Fascisti?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have read, as no doubt the hon. Members have done, the order of the day recently passed by the Foreign Press Association in Rome, and communicated by them to the Italian authorities as well as to the Press of Italy and other countries. No special representations have been made to me. I understand that the Press Law is now being modified, but British correspondents in Italy, or in any other foreign country, must, of course, conform to the laws in force in that country.

WRANGEL FLEET.

Commander BELLAIRS: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give the present whereabouts of what is known as the Wrangel Fleet, which was interned at Bizerta; and whether France, prior to agreeing to surrender this fleet to the Soviet Government, communicated with this country or has communicated any conditions made in regard to the matter?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The ships are still at Bizerta. Before recognising the Soviet Government, the French Government informed His Majesty's Government that recognition would entail the handing over of these vessels. I am not aware of any conditions attaching to the transfer.

Commander BELLAIRS: Is it not desirable that conditions should be made, in view of the fact that it will profoundly modify the balance of sea power as regards Poland and Rumania?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot, at Question Time, enter into a discussion with my hon. and gallant Friend as to how far these particular ships profoundly modify the balance of naval power anywhere. My information does not lead me to attach very great importance to their naval strength, but in any case that is a matter for the French Government.

LIQUOR TRAFFIC, UNITED STATES.

Mr. JOHNSTON: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if any representations have been received from the Government of the United States relative to the illicit traffic in alcoholic
liquors between the Bahamas and the coast of the United States; and what steps he proposes to take to stop this irritancy of good relations between Great Britain and the United States?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No representations have been received from the United States Government since the conclusion of the Liquor Convention in January, 1924, which has had the effect of greatly reducing the amount of ocean smuggling, and has, I hope, removed any danger of friction that might have arisen from this cause between the two countries.

TANGIER.

Sir F. WISE: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if Britain has any financial interest or obligation in the Tangier Port Company; and when the new Tangier Statute will come into operation?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: On the assumption that in referring to "Britain" the hon. Member means "His Majesty's Government," the answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. I regret that I am unable to say when the new Tangier Statute will come into effective operation. It was confidently hoped that this would take place on the 1st March, but so far these hopes have been frustrated.

KURDISTAN.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information to give the House as to the rising in Kurdistan; and whether he anticipates that this rising will have any effect upon the Mosul delimitation or delay a decision?

Captain LODER: 19.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is in a position to give any further information concerning the revolt against the Turkish Government in Kurdistan?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As I explained on the 2nd March, my information regarding the Kurdish revolt in Anatolia does not extend beyond what has appeared in the Press. I am unable to forecast its effect—if any—on the Turco—Iraq frontier delimitation.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Have we had no news from Bagdad?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It would not come to the Foreign Office from Bagdad; it would go to the Colonial Office.

ITALY AND RUMANIA (DEBTS).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 22.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information as to whether the Governments of Italy and Rumania have refused to pay their debts?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Guinness): The answer is in the negative.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been called to the speech by M. Herriot in the Chamber on the 28th of last month, in which he made a categorical statement to this effect?

Mr. GUINNESS: I have no further information as to that statement.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

OFICERS' MARRIAGE ALLOWANCE.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 28.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Committee which was appointed last year under the presidency of Vice-Admiral Sir William Goodenough to inquire into the question of marriage allowances for officers of the Royal Navy has reported; what is the nature of its Report; whether the Report has been published; and why a coordinating Committee is now required again examine into the matter?

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Bridgeman): The Committee referred to has reported, but as the sole object of appointing it was to assist the Admiralty in formulating proposals on this question. it is not my intention to publish the Report. The Reference of the Admiralty proposals to a co-ordinating Committee is intended to avoid delay, which separate reference to each Department interested would entail.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Without stating nature of the Report, is it not a fact that the Committee reported in favour of the granting of marriage allowances to naval officers?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: If I mention any part of it, I might be obliged to publish the whole. It is for our own information, and I do not intend to publish it.

Major HORE-BELISHA: How can the right hon. Gentleman reconcile his statement that the reference in this question to the Committee has been directed to avoid delay with the fact that the subject has already been delayed year after year?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: It has never reached the point it has reached now.

Major HORE-BELISHA: What point has it reached now?

Mr. AMMON: Was not an answer given in this House that the Committee was appointed to settle the matter?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: It was appointed to advise the Admiralty.

Mr. AMMON: Has not the question been continually raised, and was not an answer given here that it was sent to the Goodenough Committee for a decision?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I cannot answer that offhand, but I think I am right in saying the Goodenough Committee was appointed in order to give the Admiralty definite advice in the matter.

Major HORE-BELISHA: 34.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is now in a position to make a statement upon the granting of a marriage allowance to officers in the Royal Navy?

Major Sir BERTRAM FALLE: 35.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he can make any statement as to the findings of the Co-ordinating Committee of the Services on the question of marriage allowance to officers of the Navy?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am not in a position at present to make any statement on this subject.

Sir B. FALLE: May I repeat the question between now and the date of the Naval Estimates?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Yes, but it would be more convenient if I informed both hon. Members when I am likely to be able to give an answer.

Major HORE-BELISHA: What point have the deliberations reached, and why do the Committee continue to sit on it?

RATINGS' MARRIAGE ALLOWANCE.

Mrs. PHILIPSON: 31.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that under the existing Regulations a married roan with children who receives marriage allowance from the Admiralty has that marriage allowance reduced if his wife dies; whether he will approach the Treasury with a view to the rectification of this hardship; and whether he will cause to be reconsidered in this connection the case of Coastguard William G. Lewis, No. 197,020, of the Coastguard Station, Amble, Northumberland?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Davidson): I am aware of the Regulation in question, which was established only after full consideration of the position arising on the death of a wife. I am not prepared to suggest an amendment of the rule

Major HORE-BELISHA: 33.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the maximum age up to which separation allowance is payable in respect of children of naval ratings; and whether, in the case of the children of naval ratings qualifying by examination at the age of 13 years or under to be sent to a higher grade school until they attain the age of 16 or 17 years, the Admiralty can see its way to continue such allowance to their parents for such period

Mr. DAVIDSON: The maximum age up to which marriage allowance is payable in respect of children is in normal eases 14 years, which is the age at present prescribed generally by the Ministry of Education for compulsory full-time attendance at school. As the conditions governing the award of the allowance apply equally to the three fighting services, it would not be possible to give exceptional treatment to the children of naval ratings.

SINGAPORE BASE (GIFTS FROM HONG KONG AND STRAITS SETTLEMENTS).

Mr. DUFF COOPER: 29.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether a contribution has been offered by Hong Kong towards the cost of the Singapore base and accepted by His Majesty's Government.; if so, he state the amount of the contribution; and whether the offer of land previously made by the Straits Settlements still holds good?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Amery): My right hon. Friend has asked me to take this question. The answer is in the affirmative. Hong Kong has generously offered for this purpose a gift of £250,000, representing the profits made by the Colony out of the local scheme of shipping control during the War. This gift has been most gratefully accepted by His Majesty's Government. The generous offer of the Straits Settlements to provide the necessary land still holds good. The site has been acquired at a cost of one and a quarter million dollars (2146,000), and will be handed over as required.

Mr. AMMON: Does the offer from Australia. and New Zealand still hold good?

Mr. AMERY: That does not seem to me to arise out of the question on the Paper.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it right and fair that a profit made out of a scheme of State Socialism such as this should be handed over for the building of a new naval base?

CRUISER CONSTRUCTION.

Mr. BOOTHBY: 30.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can state the cost, or the estimated cost, of the cruisers "Hawkins," "Effingham," "Frobisher," "Emerald," and "Enterprise," respectively?

Mr. DAVIDSON: As the reply contains many figures, T will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
The reply is as follows:
The cost of construction of "Hawkins and "Frobisher" was £1,600,745 and £2,035,915 respectively.

The estimated cost of "Effingham," "Emerald" and "Enterprise" is:

"Effingham,"
£2,138,999


"Emerald,"
£1,448,735


"Enterprise"
£1,665,158

The estimated cost for the guns is: £36,000 each for the first three: and £25,500 each for the last two.

PENSIONS (BROKEN SERVICE).

Major HORE-BELISHA: 32.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, seeing that any broken period of service is proportionately reckonable in calculating an airman's pension, the Admiralty
can see its way to apply the same practice with regard to the pensions of the Navy and Royal Marines?

Mr. DAVIDSON: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the last paragraph of my reply of the 15th December last.

Major HORE-BELISHA: Is not my hon. Friend aware of the grave injustice of the present Regulations, which have the effect of depriving the pensioner of the money due to him in respect of his service and of putting that money in the pockets of the Admiralty; and wit'. he see that a more equitable policy is pursued?

Mr. DAVIDSON: I am afraid I cannot agree to that.

PENSION CERTIFICATES.

Sir B. FALLE: 36.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he will take the necessary action to hasten the issue of pension certificates where applicable and the return of service certificates to naval invalided ratings, observing that unnecessary delay now occurs, and in the case of George Payne, gunner, Royal Marine Artillery, who was invalided on the 14th January, 1925, neither pension or service certificates have yet been received by him; and whether he is aware that the Ministry of Labour refuses to recognise any certificate other than the service certificate, and will not recognise the temporary certificate of the Admiralty, and that consequently naval invalided ratings are in some cases destitute for some weeks?

Mr. DAVIDSON: I regret that, owing to Mr. Payne having received an award from the Ministry of Pensions in regard to a disability, it was necessary for certain inquiries to be made, and some unavoidable delay ensued. His pension papers have, however, now been issued to him. Every effort is made to send out these documents promptly. As regards the latter part of the question. I will have the necessary inquiries made. diplomatic service, of the rank of first secretary and under, who have resigned during the past year, and the number of candidates accepted for the service during the same period?

DIPLOMATIC SERVICE.

Mr. BOOTHBY: 24.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can state the number of members of the
diplomatic service, of the rank of first secretary and under, who have resigned during the past year, and the number of candidates accepted for the service during the same period?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: In the period from the 1st of March, 1924, to the 28th ultimo eight members of the Foreign Office and diplomatic service of the rank of first secretary and under resigned. Three new third secretaries have been appointed during the same period.

FOUR-POWER TREATY (PACIFIC).

Mr. HARDIE: 25.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government anticipates that the Four-Power Treaty, which provides means for peaceful adjustment of questions arising between the Pacific Powers, will not be renewed in 1931; and are the present safeguards now considered adequate by the Government?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am unable to anticipate a decision which will be taken in regard to a question not arising until 1933, i.e., 10 years from the date of the deposit of ratifications, but nothing has so far occurred to suggest to me any doubts as to its value or to foreshadow its non-renewal. I am not clear as to the meaning of the last part of the question, but if the hon. Member is referring to safeguards for peace, the Government believe that the treaty will facilitate the peaceful settlement of any difference that may arise between the signatories.

Mr. HARDIE: Considering that the Washington agreement for restricting armaments makes warfare in the Pacific very unlikely during the next seven years in which the agreement will run, would it not be better to observe the status quo rather than invite war by going on with Singapore?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Singapore is not proposed as a means of waging war, offensive or defensive, but as a necessary link in Imperial communications.

Mr. HARDIE: While that may be the point of view on those benches you have to remember that there are other people in the Pacific who do not have that point of view, and it is difference in point of view that leads to war.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That is exactly why the hon. Member should be very careful as to the colour he gives to these unfriendly suggestions.

Mr. HARDIE: What is the difference between your answer and my question so far as colour is concerned, since you intimate that there is no chance and yet you deny the right to other people??

Mr. SPEAKER: The matter had better be deferred till the Navy Estimates.

YUGOSLAVIA AND ALBANIA.

Lord HENRY CAVENDISHBENTINCK: 26.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in order to prevent the constant violations of the frontier between Yugoslavia and Albania, and the consequent difficulty in obtaining stable government or economic development in the latter country, the British representative will, at the next meeting of the League of Nations Council, suggest the setting up of a Permanent Frontier Commission which shall consist of representatives of both Governments and of a neutral president appointed by the League of Nations

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot give any undertaking to adopt my Noble Friend's suggestion.

PORTUGAL (BRITISH SHIPPING).

l7. Captain ARTHUR EVANS: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Portuguese Government has yet passed any legislation which will allow British shipping to enter Portuguese ports on the same terms as registered Portuguese ships; and can he make any statement on the subject?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer to both parts of the question is in the negative.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

BENEFIT DISALLOWED (NEW REGULATIONS).

Mr. JOHN BECKETT: 38.
asked the Minister of Labour how many persons in Gateshead have been disallowed unemployment insurance benefit since 1st February; and how many of these are due to the new regulations issued by him?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland): The number of applications for extended benefit disallowed at the Gateshead Employment Exchange between the 1st arid 27th February was 259; of these. 105 were in respect of persons who had failed to satisfy the new regulations.

Mr. BECKETT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the new leaflet, No. 21563, is being sent out to applicants, and the benefit automatically stops without further consideration?

Mr. CONNOLLY: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to draw the attention of committees and their chairmen to the fact that there is a Central Advisory Board in London which gives advice on border-line cases, and will he have the attention of these committees drawn to the fact so that they can obtain advice?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I do not think that arises out of the question at all, but I think local committees are perfectly well aware that they can get advice whenever they wish it, but I am perfectly ready to bring it to their notice if there is any doubt.

Mr. CONNOLLY: The reason I am asking is that I know the chairman of one of the committees who is in comparative ignorance.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this large number who have been thrown out at Gateshead are largely composed of married men, and that it is throwing a serious burden on the Gateshead authorities?

Mr. BECKETT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this leaflet issued by him is being sent to applicants, and their relief stops without any further notification? I do not think that was his intention?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I was not aware that it was being sent, but I will inquire into it.

Mr. ROBERT HUDSON: 49.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that a claim for unemployment benefit by Mr. F. Barker, of the "Golden Fleece" Inn, Calderbridge (Cleator Moor 3181). was disallowed by the umpire, in spite of the fact that the local court of referees went most fully into his case and decided that the man's alternative income did not
reach the statutory limit; and whether, in these circumstances, he will take steps to have the case reopened?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am informed that the umpire had before him the recommendation of the court of referees and all the facts of the case. The umpire is an independent authority whose decisions are not open to review by me. He may revise a decision on new facts being brought to his notice, but so far as I am aware there is no suggestion here that there are new facts to be brought forward.

Mr. HUDSON: In view of the undoubted hardship caused in many cases by the existing limit on alternative income, will the right hon. Gentleman consider taking steps to increase that limit somewhat?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: If that would need fresh legislation it would have to be considered together with other proposals.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: What is the reason for this umpire being outwith the jurisdiction of this House?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The reason for the umpire being outside the jurisdiction or rather his decisions being beyond my review was that he was purposely set up in order that he might look at the cases in as fair and impartial a way as possible, without any bias by anybody.

Colonel DAY: 53.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of insured persons. respectively, whose unemployment benefit has been stopped by the Walworth Employment Exchange since the 1st January, 1925, on the ground that they were not genuinely seeking employment and were not likely to be absorbed into industry; how many of these were over 60 years A age; and how many were ex service men?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: At the Borough Employment Exchange, which covers the area of Walworth, the number of applications for extended benefit rejected between 13th January and 9th February on the ground that the applicants were not making reasonable efforts to secure employment was 179, while 13 others were refused benefit on the ground that insurable work was not likely to be available for them. I regret I am not
able to state how many of these were over 60 years of age and how many were ex-service men.

Mr. MACKINDER: Is it not possible for the Minister to make some provision for men who are too old to work at 60, and are too young to receive the Old Age Pension?

Mr. LANSBURY: Would it not be possible to allow the clerks at the exchange to take down who are and who are not ex-service men who have been struck off?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: If need be I shall try to get statistics. The real trouble is that. the clerks at the exchange are very fully occupied at present, and the more returns of information of different kinds one sends for the greater the burdens placed upon them. I always try to get anything which is humanly possible that is of interest to Members, so far as it can be obtained.

Mr. J. JONES: Seeing the large number of clerks who are out of work as well as other workers, will the right hon. Gentleman try to get this information and have more men taken on?

Sir ROBERT HUTCHISON: 55.
asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that, through the operation of L.E.C. 82/13 in age groups, nearly 100 Brechin workers, mostly women, in the textile trade have become disqualified for receiving unemployment insurance benefit; and, is it was not until the passing of the 1920 Act that most of these people became insured persons, although engaged in an industry in which they would now be insurable, will he make such alteration in the new regulations as will secure a, continuance of benefit to these unemployed people

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The rule to which the hon. and gallant Member refers was announced and explained in my reply to the hon. Member for Bury on the 11th February. The requirement is imposed in exercise of the power given to the Minister of Labour to suspend temporarily the full effect of the condition imposed by the Act of last August, namely, that 30 contributions must have been paid since the beginning of the last insurance year but one. Those who have been disqualified in the Brechin district have been in receipt of benefit out of the
Unemployment Fund for so long that I fear that it is impossible to restrict the recent order and allow them to remain on benefit for a further indefinite period.

Sir R. HUTCHISON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of these women are quite unable to find the necessary number of payments towards the insurance in order to get into benefit?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: That must he so in certain of the cases under the new Order, and it must be so in the case of any Insurance Act which is worked as an Insurance Act.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Will the right. hon. Gentleman see his way to change that. Act.!

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: May I ask who passed that Act?

STAMP REGULATIONS.

Mr. T. THOMSON: 40.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that one of the effects of his new Regulations increasing the number of stamps required to qualify for unemployment benefit will be to seriously add to the rates of Middlesbrough and other towns where the amount of unemployment has been excessive during the last few years; and will he consult the local employment committees and the boards of guardian in such districts in order to ascertain the probable effect on the local rates before putting these new Regulations into force?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I have no doubt that a certain number of persons at Middlesbrough will cease to obtain benefit as a result of the new rule, but I do not think that the proportion so affected at Middlesbrough will be found to be a high one.

Mr. THOMSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman consult the local employment committee and the boards of guardians and see the. disastrous effect that will be caused to the rates?

Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in Glasgow alone 3,000 people extra have been thrown on the Poor Law as a result of the circular?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am not aware of that, and I should be surprised if that were the case: certainly it is not the case at any one Exchange in Glasgow.

Mr. BUCHANAN: In the whole of Glasgow.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I should be surprised if it were so in Glasgow as a whole.

Mr. THOMSON: Will the hon. Member consult the local authorities so that he may have the true facts of the case?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I have the true facts of the case returned to me, and as soon as I am able to collect them I will consult the local authorities. I can only repeat that any extra burden thrown on the poor rate by this circular is infinitely less than the relief which the same local authorities received at a comparatively recent date.

Mr. LANSBURY: 39.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he can give the House any information as to the number of men likely to be struck off the roll of those entitled to receive unemployment pay on 1st October next, when the Regulation as to 30 stamps comes into operation; will he, in order that men and women likely to be affected may understand the law, state to the House what is the effect of the Regulation which insists that an applicant must have 30 stamps on his card put there during the preceding two years; will he tell the House when the Regulation was first made, and how often its operation has been held up by legislation in this House; and will he, in order to prevent great hardship on individual men and women, and financial burdens being thrown upon boards of guardians and local authorities, introduce a short Bill to amend the law?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: It is a matter of considerable difficulty to estimate the numbers affected by this requirement at any particular date, and I am afraid it is impossible to forecast with any accuracy the numbers who would be disqualified under it at the beginning of next October. The requirement was imposed by Section 3 (1) (a) of the Unemployment Insurance (No. 2) Act, 1924, passed on 1st August last. Section 3 (2) of that Act gives the Minister of Labour power to suspend the operation of this requirement in any case in which he thinks fit to do so, in the period up to 1st October next, but not after that date. The period during which the 30 contributions have to be paid is that since the beginning of the last
insurance year but one, and may, according to circumstances, be anything from two to nearly four years. With regard to the last part of the question, I can give no undertaking with regard to future legislation.

Mr. LANSBURY: In view of the universal disapprobation of these regulations, will the right hon. Gentleman consider bringing in a short Bill to enable him to carry on after 1st October, as he will be able to do up to that date?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I do not necessarily accept the view of the hon. Member as regards universal dissatisfaction. There may be a different view from his, but the hon. Member is well aware that one must review the possibilities of what should or should not be done in the light of the position of trade and other circumstances. That is the reason why it is impossible at this stage to give an answer on the point to which he has referred.

Mr. J. JONES: Is the Minister aware that since these regulations came into effect 1,000 men and women have come under the boards of guardians in our own localities, because they cannot get unemployment benefit? What good is it to take these people off the unemployment register, if they have to go to the local guardians? You are making the poor keep the poor.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: We are the victims of this in Scotland.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am not aware of the fact mentioned by the hon. Member for Silvertown.

Mr. JONES: Then you arc not fit for your job.

CONTRIBUTIONS AND BENEFITS.

The following Question stood on the Order Paper in the name of Miss WILKINSON who had not responded to Mr. Speaker's call—

41. To ask the Minister of Labour what is the total amount paid in contributions to the Unemployment Insurance Fund last year by men and the amount paid by women; and what was the total amount paid in benefits to men and women, respectively, during the same period?

Miss WILKINSON: Can I not put my question?

Mr. SPEAKER: I called the hon. Member twice, before calling the next question.

Miss WILKINSON: I am sorry. I was listening to the reply of the Minister of Labour on Question 40. [An HON. MEMBER: "Get on with it!"]

Mr. KIRKWOOD: It's a punch on the jaw that you will get!

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: On point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for hon. Members opposite to threaten us with personal violence from time to time?

Mr. SPEAKER: Certainly not. The hon. Member is interfering with one of his own colleagues receiving an answer.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. SPEAKER: It is taking away the time.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: On a point of Order. The hon. Member shouted out to Miss Wilkinson: "Get on with it!"

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: For the insurance year, 1923–1924, the estimated amount of Unemployment Insurance contributions paid by workpeople (i.e., as distinct from contributions paid by employers and the Exchequer) was £13,300,000 by men and £3,300,000 by women. The estimated amount of Unemployment Benefit paid during the same year was, to men £30,400,000 (of which about one-sixth was in respect of dependants) and to women £5.100,000.

Miss WILKINSON: Could the right hon. Gentleman give the proportion paid to women on account of dependants?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I cannot answer the hon. Member off-hand, but I will make inquiries as to the proportion.

SHEFFIELD AND ATTERCLIFFE.

Mr. CECIL WILSON: asked the Minister of Labour the number of men on the Sheffield and Attercliffe Exchanges, respectively, at the end of October, November, and December, 1924, and January, 1925: and how many of these were ex-service men?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: As the answer includes a number of figures, I will, with the permission of the hon. Member, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many ex-service men have been thrown on the rates by his own Order?

Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the question.

Following is the statement referred to:

Number of Men on the Registers of the Employment Exchanges at Sheffield and Attereliffe:

Date.
Sheffield
Attercliffe


27th October, 1924
14,152
6,527


24th November,1924
14,355
6,555


29th December, 1924
15,623
6,950


26th January, 1925
13,739
5,881

Statistics of ex-service men on the registers of Exchanges are not regularly compiled. At a special census taken on 24th March, 1924, there were on the registers 4,259 at Sheffield and 1,459 at Attercliffe.

MARRIED MEN (HOUSEKEEPERS' ALLOWANCE).

Mr. CECIL WILSON: 43.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that, in a case where a wife has left her husband and is living with another man. it is possible for benefit to be obtained for her as an unmarried wife of the man with whom she is living, but that the husband who has been left is unable to obtain benefit for his housekeeper. although he would be able to do so if she were living with him as his unmarried wife; and whether he can see his way to propose such an amendment of the law as will prevent this?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The position is not quite as stated by the hon. Member; in particular, benefit is only payable in respect of an "unmarried wife" where the man, who is entitled to claim benefit and is living with her, is a widower or an unmarried man. The matter is very complicated, and I am inclined to think that it would be found that any change in the existing Statute would create greater difficulties than it cured.

SUSPENDED CLAIMS.

Mr. JOHNSTON: 50.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that at the beginning of December last Unemploy-
ment Benefit claims made by persons who had been abroad within a certain period were suspended, and that fresh regulations were promised for dealing with such cases; whether he is aware that no fresh or amending regulations have yet been announced; and, seeing that some SO to 100 persons in the Dundee district are in consequence suffering privation, will he issue such regulations forthwith?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: It has been decided that persons who go abroad, otherwise than on a visit, and subsequently return to this country, cannot qualify immediately for extended benefit, but must first Show over a reasonable period, which for practical purposes may be taken as three months, that they satisfy the statutory conditions. Those whose credit of contributions entitle them to standard benefit are not subject to this requirement.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Can we have a copy of these Regulations placed in the Library?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am not sure whether there is a copy in the Library, but, if not, I will see that the hon. Member is fully informed about it.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: Will it mean that the cases which are still awaiting the right hon. Gentleman's decision will be informed direct, owing to the anxiety of those concerned?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: If any hon. Member will bring me particulars of cases on that point, I will see what can be done, and let them have the information as quickly as possible.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: What I ask is that those who have been waiting a decision should be informed directly.

WALWORTH EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE.

Colonel DAY: 52.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of persons on the register at the Walworth Employment Exchange: how many of these are men, women and young persons, respectively; and how many are reported as working short time in the area mentioned?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: On 23rd February the number of persons on the register of the Borough Exchange, which covers the area of Walworth, was 10,429, of whom 7,680 were men, 2,303 women and
446 young persons under 18 years. Statistics of persons working short time, are not available.

DEPUTATION OF UNEMPLOYED.

Mr. LANSBURY: 58.
asked the Minister of Labour the reasons which compelled him to refuse to receive the deputation of the unemployed who asked for an interview with him on Monday, 23ri' February; and whether he will endeavour to fix an early date when the deputation can meet him?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: When the London District Committee of the National Unemployed Workers' Committee Movement asked the Department to receive a deputation, I replied regretting that, owing to pressure of work, I was unable to receive them personally. and offered to arrange for them to he received by a senior officer of the Ministry. This offer was accepted, and the deputation attended and were received on the date arranged, namely. 23rd February. If there are still points on which the deputation seek a personal interview, I shall be prepared to consider the matter, but, as the hon. Member. I am sure, realises, there are many other calls upon my time.

LOCAL COMMITTES.

Mr. THURTLE: 60 and 61.
asked the Minister of Labour (1) by what method his Department, selects representatives of workpeople to serve on local employment committees;

(2) by what means a representative of the workpeople on a local employment committee, who becomes noir persona grata to the trade unionists of the district by reason of his attitude towards applicants for benefit, may be removed from the committee.?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I will answer these questions together. Representatives of workpeople on local employment committees arc, appointed by the Minister of Labour usually on the nomination of trade unions or federations of trade unions. The bodies to be invited to make nominations are selected after careful consideration with a view to giving representation to the principal trades and organisations in the area. subject to the necessity for keeping the
numbers of members within reasonable limits. If objection were raised from any responsible quarter with regard to any member of a committee, I should be bound to consider it; but in the case of a member representing a particular organisation, the question whether that organisation wished to maintain him as their representative would obviously be one, of the factors to be taken into account.

Mr. THURTLE: Would the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to consider representations from the organised trade unionists in the district concerned as of sufficient importance to warrant him in deciding whether a person should or should not be removed from the committee?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Certainly. I have just stated that that is obviously one of the factors to be taken into account.

Mr. RILEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow the organised unemployer in the district to have represents-tion on the committee?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: What I have said indicates the general scope of what will be considered. The representations should be confined, as far as possible, to the actual trades and organisations representing the workmen.

Mr. THURTLE: 63.
asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that the Shore-ditch Trades Council, representing a very large number of insured persons, has applied for representation on the local employment committee, and has been refused such representation: and will he take steps to see that this and similar organisations throughout the country are permitted to have at least one work-people's representative on the local employment committee?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am aware that the Shoreditch Trades Council has recently applied to the Shoreditch Local Employment Committee for representation on the committee and that it was decided by the committee to take no action in the matter. I am not prepared to depart from the general rule that representation of workpeople should normally be obtained from trade unions or federations of trade unions.

Mr. THURTLE: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that a trades council such as this is the best representation he can find of the workpeople in a given district?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I repeat that as a general rule representation will be looked for from trade unions or a federation of trade unions. While I have not any precise or specific rule on the subject, I hold that trade councils, like other political organisations of the Conservative party and the Liberal party, are not necessarily bodies from which you should get representation.

Mr. MACKINDER: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that a trades council is in effect a federation of trade unions?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am not aware of it, but I will accept the hon. Gentleman's statement on the subject.

STATISTICS.

Mr. MURCHISON: 62.
asked the Minister of Labour whether it would be possible to exhibit a chart showing the fluctuations of unemployment, in recent years, in the Library or elsewhere, for the information of Members?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am glad to say I have been able to arrange for the exhibition of such a chart in the Tea-Room of the House.

MINERS.

Mr. HANNON: 68.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he can state the number of workers in the coal-mining industry totally unemployed on the 31st January, 1925, and on the corresponding date of 1924: and the amount payable in respect of such unemployed in unemployment insurance benefit?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The total number of coal miners registered as unemployed at Employment Exchanges in Great Britain at 26th January, 1925, was 100,061, compared with 58,289 at 28th January, 1924. These figures include persons claiming benefit who were on short time and not at work on the dates specified. Separate figures showing the amount of benefit paid in particular trades are not available, but assuming that these workpeople drew the same average amount per head as unemployed work-people generally, the present weekly
amount of unemployment benefit paid to them is estimated to be between £80,000 and £85,000.

Mr. HARDIE: Has the right hon. Gentleman made inquiry as to whether it was necessary to close down these mines?

Mr. SPEAKER: Another Minister will have to answer that question.

WALLSEND AND BISHOP AUCKLAND.

Miss WILKINSON: 70.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that certain persons who were concerned in the cooperative strike about two years ago have been refused benefit by the Wallsend and Bishop Auckland Employment, Exchanges on the ground that they are not genuinely seeking work; and whether, in view of the fact that the trade union concerned has, in addition to their own efforts, been making strenuous attempts for several months to find them work, he will inquire into the case?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The claims referred to in the question were, in accordance with the usual procedure, submitted to the local employment committee for their recommendation. In view of the fact that in practically every case the workpeople concerned had had no employment, since 1921 and had not even registered for employment at the Employment Exchange from 1021 until claims to benefit were lodged in November, 1924, the committee had no alternative but to recommend disallowance of the claims. I see no ground for differing from the committee.

Miss WILKINSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that between 1921 and 1923 these workers were kept off the insurance funds by their union and as a matter of fact the Unemployment Fund was thereby saved expense for two years, and in view of that circumstance will he bring the facts to the notice of the local committee?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: If the hon. Member will supply me with any information in as much detail as possible I will gladly look into it with any additional facts that may be brought forward.

Miss WILKINSON: 71.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that five women have had their benefit stopped by the Employment Exchange at Wallsend for refusing to take a nursing
position at a mental hospital in York; and whether, in view of the fact that two of these girls have recently been in and that two others have to help to support others, which would not be possible on the wage offered, he will inquire into these cases?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am making inquiry regarding these cases, and will communicate the result to the hon. Member.

Miss WILKINSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman issue some kind of order which would prevent girls being refused benefit because they refuse to take work so far away from their homes, when there are already women unemployed in the town in which the posts are offered

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The general practice is to try to take into account all personal considerations such as the distance that it is reasonably possible to ask people to go in order to take up work. It is extraordinarily difficult to lay down a general rule, but the instructions are to take those things into account as far as possible.

SUBMARINE WARFARE.

Commander BELLAIRS: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the Powers that took part in the Washington Conference agreed unanimously to the Root resolutions for the purpose of mitigating the horrors of submarine warfare as practised by our enemies in the War, and that all those Powers, with the exception of France, have since ratified those resolutions; and will he state whether he has any information as to the intentions of the French Government in the matter?

Mr. A. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, I understand the position to be that a Bill providing for the ratification by France of the treaty which embodied the resolutions is still before the Foreign Affairs Commission of the Senate.

DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS (POOR PERSONS ACT).

Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether,
seeing that applicants desirous of instituting divorce proceedings under the Poor Persons Act are precluded from doing so unless the Government Department concerned is successful in securing a solicitor willing to undertake the necessary legal work, he will state whether the Government provide the requisite legal advice; and will he consider as to the advisability of altering the Act so that poor people may not be precluded from obtaining the advantages of the divorce laws owing to their lack of means?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Douglas Hogg): I have been asked to reply. The arrangements for facilitating litigation by poor persons in the High Court depend upon the rules of the Supreme Court, and not upon Acts of Parliament. Those arrangements have recently been the subject of an inquiry by a committee presided over by Mr. Justice P. 0. Lawrence, whose Report will be in the hands of Members of this House before the end of this week. My right hon. and Noble Friend the Lord Chancellor has under his consideration the question of what proposals he will make to the Rule Committee of the Supreme Court in consequence of the Report.

Sir F. HALL: is the right hon. Gentleman aware that as the law stands it is impossible for these poor people to obtain assistance? What steps do the Government propose to take in order to make Regulations so that these persons who are entitled to assistance may have an opportunity of so doing?

Sir D. HOGG: If the hon. and gallant Member heard my reply, he would notice that I said the report of the Committee has been received this week and will reach the House at the end of the week. I am not in a position to state what proposals we shall make until we have considered it.

COST OF LIVING (INDEX NUMBER).

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: 51.
asked the Minister of Labour whether, having regard to the relative stability of the cost of living for the past three years, he will now arrange for an inquiry into family
budgets with a view to establishing a new basis for the future calculation of the cost-of living index number I

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: An inquiry such as that suggested by my hon. Friend is very desirable as soon as the conditions warrant the considerable trouble and expenditure involved. These conditions, however, must be such as to make the basis of any new figures of lasting value, and include other factors beside comparative stability in the cost of living.

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-SERVICE MEN.

KING'S ROLL.

Mr. AMMON: 54.
asked the Minister of Labour the estimated number of firms not on the King's Roll, together with the estimated proportion of firms on the King's roll

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 19th February to the hon. and gallant Member for Buckingham, a copy of which I am forwarding to the hon. Member.

Captain ARTHUR EVANS: 64.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he can now give the House the names of the local authorities who are not on the King's Roll for the employment of men disabled in the late War?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given on 15th December, 1924, to the hon. Member for Devizes, a copy of which I am forwarding to the hon. Member.

Captain EVANS: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Sir Montague Barlow, a former Minister of Labour, promised the House faithfully that if the figures did not improve he would give this information to the House, and in view of the fact that the warnings of three successive Ministers of Labour have been of no avail, will my right hon. Friend kindly reconsider his decision in this direction?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I will give the matter consideration once more, but I am not at all sure that I can satisfy the hon. and gallant Member. The objections to publishing a black list are very considerable, but they are not always apparent at first sight.

TRAINEES.

Captain EVANS: 65.
also asked the Minister of Labour how many trainees are now being instructed in Government instructional factories; how many ex-service men in all have been trained up to date; how many are there for whom improver ships have not yet been found; and how many refresher courses are now in operation?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The number of trainees now in Government instructional factories in Great Britain and Ireland is approximately 3,200. The total number of ex-service men who have been trained under the industrial training scheme up to date is approximately 90,000; the number of men awaiting improverships is approximately 2,500: the number of men now receiving refresher courses is 46.

Captain EVANS: Has my right hon. Friend any intention of closing the Welsh Training Centre?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: All these centres are gradually being closed, without necessarily consideration for the particular locality, though some extra. consideration is paid to feelings of nationality in these cases. The chief reason why they are being gradually closed is that the number of trainees has decreased and there is no reason, economically. to retain the centres in the public interest.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: When these places are closed down do you remove the trainees from Wales to England? Why not change about and move them from England to Wales?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am perfectly impartial as between England and Wales, and am merely looking to what is economically the better for the two countries.

UNEMPLOYMENT.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: 60.
asked the Minister of Labour whether the records at the Employment Exchanges are now kept in such a manner as to indicate the number of insured ex-service men who are unemployed; and, if so, whether he can state how many ex-service men were registered as unemployed on 23rd February?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Statistics of unemployed ex-service men are not
regularly compiled. A special census taken on 24th March, 1924, showed that at that date 285,993 ex-service men were registered as unemployed at Employment Exchanges in Great Britain.

TRADE BOARDS (CATERING AND RETAIL DRAPERY).

Marquess of HARTINGTON: 57.
asked the Minister of Labour whether investigations have been made into wages and conditions in the catering and retail drapery trades; and, if so, whether early publication of the results of the investigations may be expected?

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: 69.
asked the Minister of Labour whether the investigations recently made into wages and conditions in the catering and retail drapery trades revealed in those trades or in any part of them such lack of organisation or the payment of such wages as would cause the Minister to consider those trades with a view to action being taken under Section 1, Sub-section (2). of the Trade Boards Act, 1918?

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: 72.
asked the Minister of Labour whether his investigations into wages and conditions in the catering and retail drapery trades are now completed; whether he proposes to publish the results of those investigations; and, if so, how soon publication may be expected.

Miss WILKINSON: 75.
asked the Minister of Labour whether his investigations into wages and conditions in the catering and retail drapery trades are completed; and, if so, whether he is yet in a position to present the results of those investigations to the. House?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The late Government put in hand investigation by officers of the Ministry of Labour into wages and conditions in the retail drapery trade, the fancy goods trade, and the light refreshment and dining-room branch of the catering trade. The inquiries are approaching completion, and I am considering the form in which, having regard to the confidential character of some of the information obtained, the results may be made generally available. As the inquiries have not yet 'been completed I
am not yet in a position to reply to the question of the hon. Member for Nottingham South.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: is the right hon. Gentleman aware that as long as four years ago all the preliminaries were gone through in order to set up a Trade Board in the drapery trade? Why therefore is there this delay?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Since I have taken over the administration of my present office I have tried to get the situation as regards the outstanding Trade Boards cleaned up as quickly as T can.

Mr. MACKINDER: In the event of the right hon. Gentleman not being able to establish all the Trade Boards, shall we have a digest of information so that Members of the House may know exactly what ere the conditions of these people?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I shall be able I hope to give all the information in my power compatible with the, fact that some of the information obtained is necessarily got under a promise of confidence.

COAL INDUSTRY (MINERS' WELFARE FUND).

Mr. HANNON: 67.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he can state the total sum contributed to the Miners' Welfare Fund for Great Britain since its inauguration; and the total sums allocated in 1923 and 1924 in respect of local welfare schemes?

Captain HACKING (for Colonel LANE-FOX): I have been asked to reply. The total sum contributed to the Miners' Welfare Fund, including interest on investments, amounted at the 28th February, 1925, to £3,613,953 les. 6d. The total sums allocated by the Miners' Welfare Committee in 1923 and 1974 in respect of local welfare schemes were £969,839 17s. 10d. and £977,205 17s. 2d. respectively.

PROBATE, DIVORCE AND ADMIRALTY DIVISION.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: 76.
asked the Attorney-General if he is aware of the serious congestion in the Admiralty
Court; and if he is prepared to take steps to secure the appointment of an additional Judge?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Yes, Sir. Representations were made to my right hon. and Noble Friend the Lord Chancellor by an influential committee on this point, and, as a result, a Clause providing for an additional Judge has been incorporated in the Administration of Justice Bill, which has already passed its Third Reading in another place, and which I hope to introduce in this House immediately.

Mr. COUPER: 77.
asked the Attorney-General whether, in appointing an additional Judge for the Admiralty Court, the Government will have regard for the selection of a Judge from among those who have knowledge and experience of the very special nature of the work of the Admiralty Court?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: When statutory authority for the appointment of an additional Judge for the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division has been obtained, the appointment will be made by His Majesty upon the advice of the Lord Chancellor. and I have no doubt that my right hon. and Noble Friend, before tendering that advice, will have regard to all the relevant circumstances.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that Chambers of Commerce are specially urging that particular point?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Yes, Sir, but, of course, I cannot say what considerations will or will not weigh with my right hon. and Noble Friend. The matter is in his discretion, and I have no doubt he. will give due attention to all proper representations made to him.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

EMPTY DWELLING-HOUSES.

Mr. T. THOMSON: 78.
asked the Minister of Health whether, if the Government are not prepared to authorise local authorities to utilise empty dwelling-houses, he will take the necessary steps to enable local authorities to levy rates on all dwelling-houses which are withheld from occupation?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given on the 19th February to a similar question by my hon. Friend the Member for St. George's (Mr. Erskine). I am sending the hon. Member a copy of that reply.

Mr. THOMSON: Arising out of the reply to which the hon. Gentleman refers, are the Government going to do anything whatever to enable local authorities to use these empty houses?

Sir K. WOOD: My hon. Friend knows very well the difficulties, in matters of this sort especially, in regard to the particular question on the Paper, and he knows that it has been considered by successive Ministers of Health.

Mr. THOMSON: Has not the Ministry any solution to offer? If they turn down this proposal, have they some proposal of their own which would deal with this scandal?

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Are we. not going to get any answer? Is the hon. Gentleman not aware of the fact that in the West Ends of all the big industrial cities hundreds of houses arc lying empty while the working people in the East Ends are overcrowded, and will he use the great power which he has, or thinks he has, to utilise these houses and supply the urgent need of the moment? [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer!"]

Mr. SPEAKER: That is the question which is on the Paper.

SUBSIDY.

Mr. LOUGHER: 80.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has statistics showing the number of local authorities who have not yet administered that portion of the Housing Act of 1923 which provides for the granting of the lump-sum subsidy; if there are any, can he furnish the names of such local authorities; and whether he will supply the names of local authorities who augment the lump-sum subsidy out of local rates?

Sir K. WOOD: There are 1,769 local authorities who are empowered to grant subsidies for existing private enterprise under the Housing Act, 1923, and of these 1,436 have undertaken schemes for this purpose. With few exceptions these
schemes provide for a lump-sum subsidy. The majority of the 333 authorities who have no schemes are the councils of small urban districts or rural districts. In the case of 375 of the 1,436 local authorities who have undertaken schemes the subsidy granted is in excess of the Exchequer contribution.

ROAD-MAKING MATERIAL (PRICES).

Mr. SCURR: 81.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the large profits distributed in dividends by firms engaged in the provision of materials for road making; and whether, in view of the heavy burden imposed on the local authorities, he will cause an inquiry to be held into prices charged and, if necessary, introduce legislation to regulate prices and stop profiteering?

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): The Board of Trade have no information bearing out what is understood to be the. hon. Member's suggestion, that excessive prices are being charged for the materials mentioned; but they will be glad to consider any detailed information which he may be able to furnish.

BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. R. W. PINDER).

Sir F. HALL: 82.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that in December, 1918, Mr. R. W. Pinder was asked by his Department to accept a permanent appointment in the Industrial Power and Transport Department; that in February, 1920, Mr. Pinder definitely accepted this offer and took up his appointment as a permanent senior staff officer; that on the 6th March, 1923, Mr. Pinder received formal written notice that his permanent and pensionable appointment would terminate on the 1st May; and that he eventually left the Department on the 15th May; and will he state who was the official responsible for the dismissal of a. permanent civil servant; on whose authority was this proceeding carried out; on what grounds was Mr. Pinder relieved of his duties; and what compensation has been awarded him for the loss of a, permanent and pensionable appointment?

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: I am sending my hon. and gallant Friend a copy of an answer on this subject which was given in the House in 1923, which will give him a detailed reply to the questions he has raised.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

FIRING PRACTICE (FENHAM BARRACKS).

Mr. PALIN: 83.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider the possibility of reducing the amount of rifle and machine gun fire which now goes on at Fenham Barracks, Newcastle-upon-Tyne; whether he is aware that there is a convalescent home only a stone's-throw away, and that such an amount of firing is very disturbing to the patients accommodated there; and whether, having regard to the residential character of the district, he will endeavour to secure a more suitable site for this rifle range?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Captain Douglas King): My right hon. Friend is having inquiry made into the complaint brought to notice by the hon. Member, and will let him know the result as soon as possible.

ROYAL ARMY SERVICE CORPS (CLERKS' PAY).

Colonel Sir F. HALL: 84.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether the Royal Army Service Corps record office was amalgamated with the Royal Army Service Corps pay office on the 1st September, 1922, and the clerks in the former office receive a basic salary of 28s. per week, rising by two annual increments of 2s. each to 32s. per week, while the clerks employed in the pay office have a basic salary of 28s. per week, rising by five annual increments of 2s. each to 38s. per week; and, in view of the fact that there consequently exists the anomaly of two sets of clerks being employed in the same office and of the same status, but drawing different rates of pay owing to the system of payment of increments, will he have inquiries made forthwith into the matter, with the object of having the discrepancy corrected?

Captain KING: The different scales of pay which were in operation in the Royal Army Service Corps pay office and
record office, respectively, were continued after the amalgamation of the two offices pending the general re-organisation of clerks and writers in War Department out-station establishments. A scheme of re-organisation is now under discussion with the appropriate Whitley Council.

Sir F. HALL: Shall we have that report very soon?

Captain KING: It is not a report; it is a discussion between the staff and the official side, and the. negotiations are now in a very advanced stage.

Sir P. HALL: Are these men going to get the advantage of the difference in pay?

Captain KING: We have to await the result of the negotiations between the two sides.

BANK RATE.

Mr. SNOWDEN: (by Private Notice) asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether a rise in the Bank rate is contemplated and, if so, whether the Government have taken into account the effect on trade and employment?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): It seems to be generally anticipated that in view of the increase in market rates, which has already been in operation since Friday last, the Bank rate will now be raised. This is a matter for the decision of the Bank, whose duty it is to take into consideration all relevant factors, including those mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. SNOWDEN: Arising out of the reply, while agreeing that this is directly a matter in the hands of the Bank of England, may I ask whether the Treasury have been consulted about this matter, view of the great importance of this question and its effect, for good or evil, on trade and on the financial position of the country; and if the Treasury have been consulted, have the Treasury approved of this course?

Mr. CHURCHILL: As the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, it is not the practice for the Treasury to be formally consulted in these matters. The Treasury is naturally in close touch with the Bank of England, and I should cer-
tainly not suggest that Chancellors of the Exchequer, from time to time, are not fully aware of the general trend of the policy being pursued by the Bank of England, but nothing in the nature of formal consultation is usual or necessary, and nothing in the nature of formal consultation has taken place on this occasion.

Mr. J. JONES: Is it the case that the only time when the Bank consults the Government is when they want guarantees in the event of possible collapse?

Mr. SNOWDEN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman for a reply to that part of the supplementary question which I put as to whether or not this step is being taken with the approval of the Treasury?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I think it would be an inconvenient practice if the Chancellor of the Exchequer were to set the precedent of expressing approval or disapproval of decisions taken at any time by the Bank of England.

Mr. G. BALFOUR: Is it not the fact that in the past it has always been the case that the Bank rate has advanced as we gradually drew nearer to trade prosperity, and that we always had a low rate in times of depression and a high rate in times of prosperity?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I have not made the statistical inquiries which will enable me to give a full answer to that question.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: The right hon. Gentleman in his answer has said that the rate of interest started going up on Friday last. May I ask him in that connection whether it was not the rumour that the Bank rate was going to be put up next Thursday—to-morrow—which started this rise; whether the question of consultation with the Government has not come about since we have left the gold standard; and whether it is not the case that as long as we are off the gold standard, it is a question for the Government as well as for the Bank to decide what the rate is to be?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I think there are great difficulties in discussing matters of this extraordinary complexity, by question and answer at Question Time. I certainly admit they are matters that might well be the subject of Parliamentary discussion on some of the
numerous opportunities which the financial business of the year affords.

Mr. MAXTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman make any estimate as to what burden this change will cast upon the Treasury

Mr. CHURCHILL: It would be impossible to make any estimate of the burden which this change would cast upon the Treasury unless you considered also the possible burden which adopting any other course would cast upon the Treasury.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS.

Sir JAMES REMNANT: May I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, the desirability of extending the limitations which you, two or three years ago, to the great advantage of the House, put upon the number of questions allowed to be asked by any single Member on any particular day? Would it not be possible to extend that limitation to the number of supplementary questions, because it is almost impossible for those questions that are on the Paper, say, beyond No. 70, to be called on the day on which they appear on the Paper, in view of the large number of supplementary questions, amounting in some cases to five or six by a single _Member'?

Mr. SPEAKER: I am very reluctant to impose a limit on supplementary questions. To-day, 84 questions have been dealt with, but I must trust, as I have done in the past, to hon. Members to remember that there are others—

Mr. KIRKOOD: Why look at us, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. SPEAKER: I am very sorry that the hon. Member should take that remark as having a, personal application. It is not so meant. I can only ask hon. Members to have consideration one for another.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: I would like to suggest that in dealing with this matter the Ministers might be somewhat more liberal with their answers.

Mr. SPEAKER: I sometimes think that Ministers are too argumentative.

NOTICES OF MOTION.

CONFIDENCE IN INDUSTRY.

Sir FRANK SANDERSON: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I shall call attention to the necessity of confidence between those engaged in industry, and move a Resolution.

CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES AND POLITICAL PARTIES.

Mr. NUTTALL: I beg to give notice that., on this day fortnight, I shall call attention to the position of co-operative societies in relation to political parties, and move a Resolution.

LABOUR AND SOCIALIST INTERNATIONAL.

Lieut.-Colonel POWNALL: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I shall call attention to the programme of the Labour and Socialist International, and move a Resolution.

HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS (ECONOMIC CONDITIONS).

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I shall call attention to the economic conditions of the Highlands and Islands, and move a Resolution.

AIR MINISTRY (CROYDON AERODROME EXTENSION) BILL.

Ordered, That the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills do examine the Air Ministry (Croydon Aerodrome Extension) Bill with respect to compliance. with the Standing Orders relative to Private Bills.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (BLACKPOOL) BILL [Lords].

Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill, as amended, to he considered Tomorrow.

PORT OF LONDON BILL.

Reported, without Amendment: Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Bill to be read the Third time.

ISLE OF WIGHT HIGHWAYS BILL.

Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to—

War Charges (Validity) Bill,

Dundee Corporation and Water and Gas Order Confirmation Bill, without Amendment.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, An Act to amend the Law with respect to the jurisdiction and business of the Supreme Court in England and with respect to the judges, officers, and offices thereof, and otherwise with respect to the administration of justice." [Administration of Justice Bill [Lords.]

ADMINSTRATION OF JUSTICE BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; to he read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 91.]

STANDING ORDERS.

Resolutions reported from the Select Committee;

1. "That, in the case of the Tyne Bridge, Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought not to be dispensed with."
2. "That, in the case of the Leeds Corporation Bill, Petition for leave to dispense with Standing Order 123 in the case of the Petition of Leeds and District Horse and Motor Owners' Association,' against the Bill, the Standing Order ought to be dispensed with."
3. "That, in the case of the Ancient Monuments Preservation Order Confirmation Bill—Special Report of the Examiners, no Standing Orders, not previously inquired into, are applicable; as in their opinion the Ancient Monuments Preservation Order Confirmation Bill should be treated as a Provisional Order Confirmation Bill."

Second and Third Resolutions agreed to.

Report to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — CHURCH OF SCOTLAND [PROPERTY AND ENDOWMENTS].

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 71A.

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purpose of any Act of the present Session to amend the Law relating to teinds and to the stipends of ministers of the Church of Scotland, and the tenure of the property and endowments of that Church, and for purposes connected therewith, it is expedient—

(1) to authorise the Treasury to contract for the redemption by payment of a capital sum or sums of all or any of the payments to or on behalf of that Church, or the General Assembly, or any committee or institution of the Church, or any minister or precentor, which are now charged on and payable out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom;
(2) to authorise the Treasury to borrow from the National Debt Commissioners any capital sum or sums which may he necessary for carrying into effect any contract for such redemption;
(3) to authorise the Treasury, for the purpose of repaying any such loan, to create in favour of the said Commissioners a terminable annuity for a period not exceeding twenty years from the date of the loan, to be calculated with interest at such rate as may be agreed, and to charge any such annuity upon the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom or the growing produce thereof."—[King's Recommendation signified.]

The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. William Watson): The purpose of this Financial Resolution is to enable the Treasury to negotiate with the Church authorities for the redemption of certain sums which at the present time are already payable out of the Consolidated Fund. The Financial Resolution does not in any way deal with the question as to whether or not these payments are to be continued, but is a mere enabling Resolution, giving the Treasury the power to contract for the redemption of whatever the sums may be, whether restricted or otherwise. It will be for the convenience of the Committee, I feel sure, if, in the first instance, I explain what is the. nature of these payments. These payments are all contained
in the Seventh Schedule of the Bill, under six heads, and I propose to deal with these six heads separately.
4.0 P.M.
The first three heads are very much of the same character. They all relate to sums which are payable for the augmentation of stipends of ministers in various parts of Scotland, and, taking No. I first, which amounts to a sum of £12,000, the history of that is as follows: I do not want to go back on a good deal that was said on the Second Reading Debate with regard to the transition of the old Church property and land into the hands of the Crown and various lay titulars, as they were called, at the time of the Reformation. That has been very fully dealt with already, but may I remind the Committee that, generally speaking, those Church properties did go into the hands of the Crown and, through the Crown, into the hands of laymen to a very large extent. It was recognised subsequently, even in Acts of Parliament, that the description of those properties was the patrimony of the Church." You will find that expression in Acts of Parliament, and the last stage of that transference of the old Church property subsequent to the Reformation was in 1690, when on the final abolition of the episcopacy in Scotland the Bishops' lands were forfeited to the Crown and remained in the hands of the Crown except in so far as by power subsequently obtained at a much later date these have been sold or otherwise realised.

The CHAIRMAN: I think I should point out to the right hon. and learned Gentleman and to the Committee that this is a Motion of narrow limits. It proposes to allow the Treasury to compound for certain payments that they are at present liable to make, such being set forth in the Schedule to the Bill. It is open to argument whether the Treasury should have this right to compound or not, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman, of course, is in order in setting out what these things are, but I do not think that it would be in order to have a controversial historical discussion as to the origin of these payments

The LORD ADVOCATE: I had hoped that I was stating it non-controversially—I have no desire to be controversial—but there is necessarily interesting his-
torical matter with regard to these payments. May I also remind the Committee that in the time of Charles I provision was made for providing the clergy, the Reformed Church clergy of the Church of Scotland, with competent stipends, and, along with that, it is necessary to explain that there had been power given and Commissions set up to have the teinds, as they were called, of the different proprietors throughout the country valued. By the beginning of the 19th century, owing in part, as set out in the narrative of the Statute in which these payments had their origin, and owing in part to the general fall in prices of grain on which the stipends were generally based, and in part to the fact that many of the valuations which were obtained in the first part of the 17th century under the process to which I have referred were—I suspect because of undue influence in some cases—exceptionally low and turned out to be worth very little, it was found in many parishes in Scotland that it was impossible, under the existing system of raising stipends from the teinds, in view of these valuations and the low price of victual, to get anything like a salary op stipend on which the ministers could live. The Crown at the beginning of the last century, as I have already reminded the Committee, had in its hand a good many of the old Church lands, and the course taken was that, in the first instance, under an Act of 1810—that is what settles a part of the first sum in the Seventh Schedule—provision was made for the making up of a list of parishes in Scotland in which the stipend of the minister was less than £150 and was incapable of being raised by further resort to the usual method of getting an augmentation of stipend. That list was to be made up by the Barons of the Exchequer, and it was provided, under that Act of 1810, that in those cases the difference between the actual amount so brought out and £150 was to he provided from the hereditary revenues of the Crown in Scotland. That gives a sum of £10,000 a year.
A similar provision, as a result of further alteration in the prices of grain and other circumstances, was made in 1824 for bringing them up to £150 or in cases where it had been discovered that manses or glebes could not be got to £180 or £200, making the total of £12,000 a year in the
first Schedule. In 1824 likewise, because, of the long distances, particularly in the Highlands, which could not be covered by the parish ministers and the lack of provision of religious ordinances for the people there—they were so far away that they could not get to their parish church—a sum of £50,000 was authorised to be spent and was spent in erecting additional places of worship, mainly, if not entirely, in the Highlands. I should mention that these churches in each case were erected by transactions with the heritors themselves. Manses were provided, glebes were provided, sites were provided, and the whole cost in every case did not fall on the State, on the hereditary revenues. There, against, there was a provision to provide a stipend, I think, up to £120 a year. Again, those sums were charged on the hereditary revenues of the Crown in Scotland. That was a sum of £5,040 per annum, which is the second sum in the seventh Schedule. The first two items, making £17,040, were subsequently—I do not think I need trouble with the details, of the Statute—transferred from the hereditary revenues of the Crown in Scotland on to the Consolidated Fund. That certainly is not a point on which any Scotsman should raise a complaint. That was because the management of the hereditary revenues of the Crown in Scotland was transferred to the English Office of Woods and Forests, and they were brought together and the charge was put on to the Consolidated Fund. These payments have continued to the present day. I should mention that the first sum of £12,000 covers 204 parishes in Scotland at the present time. It is split up among 204 parishes.
Let me now turn to the third sum mentioned in the Schedule, because I want to be as short as I can. It is a sum of £2,000 for itinerant preachers, and it is of very old date. It was first of all granted as a sum of £1,000 a year by a Royal Warrant in 1725, and it bore to be payable again by the Receiver-General of the hereditary revenues in Scotland, or, as it is expressed:—
The Receiver-General and Paymaster of our revenues in Scotland out of such our treasure being and remaining in his hands.
and the warrant was addressed to the Barons of the Exchequer in Scotland. That payment was subsequently increased to £2,000 in 1811, and the purpose of it
was to provide itinerant preachers, I think almost entirely in the Highlands, to go round and to provide means of religious instruction and aid and ordinances to smaller groups of people who could not be reached by the ordinary parish means. The fourth item is a sum of £1,100 which is for certain expenses of the General Assembly. It includes allowances to the Moderator who, as my English friends may know, is the Chairman or President of the General Assembly of the Church, to the Procurator, a very ancient office which I was once proud of holding, who is the legal adviser and Treasurer of the Church as well, and to various other officials of the Church. It also covers the provision of beadles and the general expenses of the Assembly. Five hundred pounds was the original sum in that case, and it was first paid under a Royal Warrant of Queen Anne of 1710. This sum, again, is charged on the hereditary revenues in Scotland, and hon. Members will note that these last two sums date from a period not very long after the Revolution settlement of 1690. That sum was increased to £1,000 in 1808. Up to that point the Moderator had not participated in it, but in 1832 an additional £100 went to the Moderator of the Church. The remaining two sums are not large in amount, but they are very interesting in their nature. The fifth item is a sum of £86 3s. 1d., and is payable to three ministers and three precentors. It will be noted that it is brought out very precisely.

Mr. JOHNSTON: The White Paper says seven ministers and precentors.

The LORD ADVOCATE: I am afraid that is a slip. I must differ from it. The three precentors get a sum of £5 odd each, amounting to about £16. That. is all that is in their favour. They are the precentors of St. Andrews, an old Archbishopric, the Precentor of Glasgow, an old Bishopric, and the Precentor of Dunfermline, an old Abbacy. The ministers are the Minister of Queens-ferry, the Minister of Breehin, and the Minister of Lerwick. They get sums of just over £21 each. These payments go back a long way. For instance, the payment to the Minister of Queensberry goes back to 1794 under a Royal Charter which expressly bears that it. is a grant out of the teinds in the hands of the
Crown. In the same way, the grant to the Minister of Meigle, which we can trace as far back as 1773—that is the first recorded note of it—expressly bears to be a payment out of the bishops' rents in the hands of the Crown. It is the same with regard to Lerwick, which we can trace hack to 1701—a Royal Charter. All these three places—and we may assume it is the same in the case of the small amounts to the precentors—are all grants directly related to bishops' teinds or rents in the hands of the, Crown. They, like the other payments in the middle of last century or thereabouts, were transferred on to the Consolidated Fund. That is the cause of all these payments. But I wish to bring to the notice of the Committee what was their origin. I could give a great deal more interesting detail, but it is not worth while.

Mr. JOHNSTON: What was the ostensible justification for making these-payments at all?

The LORD ADVOCATE: The justification undoubtedly—at least I suggest it looks like it—was that these were payments out of revenues in the hands of the Crown which were directly related to the particular minister or percentor benefiting.

Mr. JOHNSTON: That is not an answer to my question. Perhaps I did not make my question clear.

The LORD ADVOCATE: Let me make it more plain. These were lands which originally had been Church lands and were forfeited to the Crown under the Revolution settlement of 1690, shortly prior to the date when some of these payments were started. History very seldom gives a complete and absolute answer, and I can only give the information that I have at my disposal. But they have gone on for a very long time. It is only as a matter of form or convenience that lately they have taken the form of being a charge on the Consolidated Fund. The payment is not a very big one, anyway.

Mr. JOHNSTON: The right hon. Gentleman has told us the historical-source from which the moneys have come to pay the Ministers at Lerwick, Queens-ferry and Brechin, and the three unnamed percentors, but he has not informed us, from the batch of historical
evidence which he appears to have beside him, what was the ostensible justification at the time for making the payment to these particular individuals.

The CHAIRMAN: If he were to info the Committee of that, I should have to pull him up.

The LORD ADVOCATE: My hon. Friend asked me particularly about the Lerwick payment. The Lerwick payment was granted in 1701 out of the rents of the Bishopric of Dunkeld. Undoubtedly the Bishop's rent and teinds of Orkney had been forfeited to the Crown in 1690.

Mr. BARR: What was the amount?

The LORD ADVOCATE: The three of them are just over £21.

Mr. MAXTON: Is that the value of the land originally stolen?

The LORD ADVOCATE: I think one is safe to assume that the land was—

Mr. HARDIE: The land belonged to the people before it was under the Church.

The LORD ADVOCATE: Historically the lands belong to the Church. That is not the point, however, with which we are concerned to-day. Dowally is a peculiar payment, and would take some little time to explain. But there, again, the lands of the Bishop of Dunkeld came into the hands of the Crown in 1690, after the Revolution Settlement, and the original payment to the Minister of Dunkeld was in 1704, when a grant was given by the Crown to the Minister of Dunkeld out of the teinds of Meigle, a parish some little distance away. But the teinds had belonged to the Bishopric of Dunkeld. Later on—I think about the beginning of last century—it was found that the Crown could not stand in the way of the Meigle minister getting his rights out of these teinds, and a payment seems to have been made from that (late from the hereditary Crown lands. I wanted to inform the Committee of the origin of these grants. The amount of that payment, if it makes the Committee any wiser, is, I think, 86 bolls, but it is an amount which is reduced each year into money according to current prices. That explains as briefly as I can explain it the general nature of these teinds.
I now come to the general terms of the Financial Resolution itself. I would again remind the Committee of what the Chairman has already drawn attention to, that we are not really concerned here as to whether these payments are to be continued or not, and I remind the Committee of this because of an Amendment on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Barr), because I am going to suggest to him that he should not press his Amendment, and I hope to convince him of the reason why he should not do so. I quite appreciate the purpose of the hon. Member in putting the Amendment down. It is, I understand, in order to secure that these payments shall not be continued after the lives of the existing incumbents. But let me put this. The first Sub-section of Clause 18, which is riot included in the Financial Resolution, is the one on which the continuation of these payments will arise in Committee, and the hon. Member has got an equivalent Amendment to that Sub-section. But, assuming for the moment that Sub-section (1) is limited to payments to existing incumbents, the Financial Resolution as it stands will equally apply in its present terms without alteration at all. On the other hand, if in Committee the Amendment to Subsection (1) is refused, and the payments are to be continued, the effect of the hon. Member's Amendment to the Financial Resolution would be that it would completely hamper the Treasury in negotiating for redemption, because all they could do then would be to go to the Church authorities and say, "It is quite true that under Sub-section (1) these payments are to he continued in perpetuity, and it is quite true that we would like to redeem them if we could, but because of a limitation put in the Financial Resolution, all that we can offer you is the capital value of the existing life interests."
That means that the Financial Resolution would be absolutely useless. There never could be any negotiations at all, and it does seem to me that the Amendment is not necessary for the hon. Member's true purpose, as I understand it. And, on the other hand, if his Amendment—and I have strong reason to put accent on this—were accepted on the Financial Resolution, and the powers were left as in Subsection (1), which is not in the Financial Resolution, it would make the Financial
Resolution futile. I do not imagine that is what the hon. Member and his colleagues desire to bring about. Their desire, I understand, which we will meet at the proper time and place, is to have the continuation of these payments limited to the duration of existing life interests, and not in perpetuity. You cannot. do that by the Financial Resolution, or any Amendment of it, and it is for that reason I am suggesting to hon. Members who have put down this Amendment that the only effect of the Amendment, if adopted, would be to add nothing to carrying out what is the true purpose of the rest of the Bill. On the other hand, if they were successful, it would completely hamper the Treasury on the Financial Resolution. I would, therefore, suggest to the hon. Member and his friends that they should not press the Amendment, as it would really not serve, from that point of view, any useful purpose, although I quite appreciate the point which has led the hon. Member to put it down. I have dealt, I believe, quite fully with the various points, and have indicated what, in the opinion of the Government, is the right course that we should ask the Committee to take. Accordingly, I would appeal to the House to pass the Resolution without Amendment.

Mr. BARR: I beg to move, in line 9, at the end, to add the words
Provided that such capital sum or sums shall not exceed the amount, together with interest thereon, necessary for discharging in full all existing life interests.
I think that we have before us, this afternoon, a very clear issue. We have a payment chargeable on and payable out of the Consolidated Fund. The right hon. Gentleman has given a very interesting historical statement, in the main accurate, but with one or two suggestions and inferences with which I do not agree. He has correctly and properly called attention, in the first instance, to the Acts of 1810 and 1824, under which these endowments were first bestowed upon the Church. As he indicated, the Government of the day found that certain stipends had come to a very low ebb indeed; that owing to the teinds having been exhausted in certain cases, there was no available source other than the Exchequer by which they could make an increment to these very low salaries, and
they proposed, under the Act of 1810, to augment the stipend up to the sum of £150. Fourteen years later—in 1824—they found that, owing to the fall in the price of grain, a standard of 1150 was not maintained, and they voted an additional £2,000, making £12,000 in all. Where there was neither manse nor glebe, they provided for a salary up to £200, but where there was a mans; or glebe, £180 was provided.
Another 1924 Act cancelled an Act of 1823 mainly for the purpose of building places of worship in the outlying districts. These were auxiliary congregations, and the minister was, in a sense, the assistant minister. In the first instance, they were not to exceed 40 in number. In the end there came to be 42, and a salary of £120 was provided for these ministers, who were, in fact, assistants to the minister of the parish, though they had a certain liberty and position of their own. That accounted for £5,040. In this Measure, I think, there were one or two provisions that the right hon. Gentleman did not indicate. It was mentioned, for example. that there should be a fit person appointed as precentor at the princely sum of £5 per annum, and a beadle, who was to be "passing rich," on the sum of £3 per annum. I am sorry to say these Acts reflect somewhat upon the class to which I belong, because, as the right hon. Gentleman will know, they contain a provision that if ministers, in their extremity, should sign their names to warrants, when they were not entitled to these grants, they were to be judged guilty of the crime of forgery. I am glad to say this threat proved effective, and history does not give any instance of ministers being guilty of forgery in order to obtain a salary, although sometimes we have been obliged to resort to sonic strange means of obtaining a salary. T said we had a very clear issue in these Exchequer grants. We are not dealing here with a question of teinds. It is easy to mystify and to say you know nothing as to the origin of teinds. It is easy to say that these were originally the gift of pious donors, but we do not associate a pious donation with the Chancellor of the Exchequer or with the Consolidated Funds. The right hon. Gentleman put forward a plea that these were in respect of bishops' teinds and rents that had been given over in the year of the Revolution Settlement. T noticed that. towards the
end of his speech he indicated certain small sums which he was able to connect with the Exchequer in this way and with the hereditary revenues of the Crown. I also noticed, in regard to the larger grants, that what he said was more in the way of suggesting, and as a matter of fact—

The LORD ADVOCATE: These sums are expressly charged upon the Consolidated Fund.

Mr. BARR: I will come to that particular point. These are the words in the Statute and they seem to me to imply quite clearly that they were drawn from the current revenue:
There shall in every year be set apart and appropriated in the hands of His Majesty's Receiver-General and Paymaster in Scotland out of the public revenues and monies received and collected by him.
I think that is entirely clear. Not only so, but the Church of Scotland were good enough to promise that they would look into this matter and provide us with a memorandum on the subject. They were obliged to confess—and they did so quite freely and clearly—that in the Acts themselves there is nothing to connect this with the bishops' revenues, with the bishops' lands, teinds, and rents. I think the answer to that is this: That I cannot see that the Presbyterian Church of Scotland can have any claim to teinds and rents that were given expressly, as appears, for working the bishoprics and the advancement of episcopacy in Scotland!.

The CHAIRMAN: I would remind the hon. Member that the question before the Committee is not whether these payments are justified, but whether, as they exist, the Treasury shall have the right to redeem them or not.

Mr. BARR: I hope that I understand you aright, but what I am seeking to show is that in view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman travelled so far in showing the history of this, that I thought I might be allowed to point out that his historic claim did not carry us to the point that there was any obligation on this House to continue these indefinitely, and to continue them by a redemption that would carry full value; therefore was arguing that the redemption should he limited to the life interest. I do not dwell en the other funds to which he re-
ferred, the £2,000 for itinerant preachers, and the £1,100 for expenses of the General Assembly. These were properly described in the Haldane Report as coming from public sources. It may be said that these were rightly given, but I should like to put this point: that even if they were a proper charge when they were given—which I do not admit—the Church was one and it represented the people of Scotland. It is altogether a different question to provide a redemption sum that will continue in full to-day when the Church is divided and when it cannot be said to represent in the same full degree the people of Scotland.
It may be said further, that these are small funds, but the principle is great and it is very clear. As a matter of fact, the Church of England does not draw from public sources in the same way in which the Church of Scotland does in these grants. That was very clearly brought out by a statement made by Mr. Gladstone bearing upon these endowments with which we are dealing. In 1892 he wrote:
The Church of England receives no assistance from public funds.
In a speech on the 25th January, 1893, he qualified that in the following words:
I have declared again and again that the funds of the Church—understanding the words as they were generally understood by the Irish Church Act—are national property. And this remains true, although it be also true that the Established Church in England does not, like that in Scotland, draw anything as an Establishment from what I may term Parliamentary sources.
I dare say it will be said that if we are limited to the present life interest, to alter it would bring hardship upon incumbents and churches. The answer to that is that in any church in Christendom that has been relieved of such grants the testimony is to the fact that it has prospered far better without such grants than with them. There is nothing which so dries up the fountains of Christian liberality and paralyses Christian giving as allowances and grants like these.

The CHAIRMAN: I would again remind the hon. Gentleman that if the whole of this Resolution were denied the grants would continue indefinitely, as they are now being paid. The sole question before the Committee is whether the Treasury should have the right to redeem
them or not. It is impossible to argue the question now as voluntaryism and establishment.

Mr. BARR: Mr. Hope, with all respect, I have no intention of so doing. What I have not made sufficiently clear in my argument was that if you redeem for such a sum as was suggested in the Haldane Report the full value of such sum will continue, annual payment or annuity, fur all time. You will be on an entirely different basis from that on which it now stands if you limit the payments to the present life interest.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member would he quite in order in showing that they should not be redeemed because he hopes in a future Parliament to get rid of them altogether. But he is not in order in showing whether they should continue or not. He must direct his attention to the Financial Resolution.

Mr. BARR: The point I wish to make is this: that the redemption should be limited so that it should be a sum which should not provide a continuance in full of the payment, but be limited to the present life interest. The Amendment I have down exactly bears that out, and that at the close of the period, such grants shall cease altogether. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that I should withdraw my Amendment altogether inasmuch as it was not necessary, and that if I carried it—which is a very optimistic prophecy—as an Amendment to the Clause in the Scottish Grand Committee it would not be necessary, and that if I do carry it then it would hamper the Government.
I desire to hamper the Government in this respect, because I am not in favour of the continuance in full of this payment. To refer once more to these particular churches which are affected, you will find there are 32 churches mentioned in the particular Schedule that gives the list of the Parliamentary churches. Of these there are 18 that have less than 30 members, 14 with less than 20 members, and 10 which have not more than 10 members. We are often asked to carry through these Financial Resolutions in order that we may limit the number of churches in Scotland, but I submit that by these grants you are unnecessarily increasing the number of churches that
would not exist at all unless they had this artificial support given to them. Further, I say that by passing this Money Resolution and continuing thereby these grants, though in a new form, you do not aid the cause you have at heart, and that nothing is more obnoxious than a continuance in any form, even in the form of the redemption, of these grants, to the Church to which I belong. I have not heard any minister or office bearer in the United Free Church defend these grants. When I was coming away, one of the leaders of the movement towards union said to me, "I hope you will be able to do something in regard to these Exchequer grants." We hold them as absolutely wrong in themselves, and I belong to a Church which for half a century has made its protest against such grants. If now it were to give in and accept, even in this form which is proposed, in the form of a redemption sum, I do not think it could expect anything after its testimony but scorn from the people of Scotland. I stand so strongly against these grants because I believe that if the Church were to accept a continuance, even in this new form, it would completely doom itself in the eyes of the democracy, and it would renounce all claim to the moral leadership of the people of Scotland.

Mr. KIDD: I shall try, Mr. Hope, to respect the limit which you properly enforce in a discussion of this kind. I confess I had a difficulty in quite appreciating the argument of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Barr) in his attempt to distinguish between the property of the Church, represented as it is by these grants from the Consolidated Fund, and the property of the Church otherwise as represented by teinds. It matters not how the money under discussion is labelled at the present time, there can be no doubt about this, that the original source of the money at the time of the Reformation was Church land. Take the case of my own constituency. We have there a humble allowance of 20 guineas, and that 20 guineas is a small sum representing lands, which, although situated at South Queensferry, belong to the Abbey of Kulross. The lands of that abbey were not confined to the northern side of the Forth, but extended to the southern side of the Forth.
If the source of these grants are Church lands, given to the Church at the time of the Reformation, appropriated by the Reformed Church to provide a competence for the ministry of the Church, I cannot see how we can distinguish them from teinds. The only argument against the Resolution that I can imagine is this, that some exception can be taken to these grants coming from the Consolidated Fund. The Lord Advocate's very luminous speech has made quite clear that while the source is now so labelled the real source is that which I have stated, and that the legal title is perfect. 'Considering that the Reformed Church got only a fraction of the total Church land, I hope hon. Members will agree that on grounds of equity and law no exception can be taken to the Resolution.

The CHAIRMAN: I would remind the hon. Member that now an Amendment has been accepted which still further limits the Debate. The question is whether the sum paid for redemption shall be by annual payments, or whether the amount shall be such as to discharge existing liabilities.

Mr. KIDD: With regard to redemption, my hon. Friend would lose by baulking this Resolution. If the Resolution be not carried, then there is no redemption. If there is no redemption, there is continuing payment, and if there is a desire on the part of anyone in the House to take from the Church anything, or to limit its patrimony in any way, the best way to defeat that purpose would be by defeating the present Resolution. If the Resolution be not carried, the payment continues, and a continuing payment., I am entitled to assume, would amount to very much more, if capitalised on a reasonable basis, than any sum given in redemption. For that reason I hope the Committee, on every ground, on the ground of economy—if that is a ground that moves any Member of this House in dealing with the Church—will pass the Resolution, as also on the ground of law and equity.

Mr. MACPHERSON: I do not propose to detain the Committee for more than a moment or two, as I have not the least intention of disobeying your ruling, Mr. Hope, and discussing endowments, or establishments, or any such subject. The
point I desire to make is a very small one, and I hope you will regard it as germane to the subject. We are greatly indebted to my right hon. Friend the Lord Advocate for the clearness of the many speeches which he has been delivering lately on this particularly thorny and difficult subject, difficult even to a Scotsman. As I understood his speech this afternoon, he went on to explain that these moneys were originally payable out of the hereditary revenues of the Crown in Scotland, and that after a certain time they became embodied in what we now know as the Consolidated Fund, and that the real reason for moving this Money Resolution this afternoon is to enable the Treasury to get from Parliament the right of redeeming these sums this year. These sums, when redeemed, are to be used for certain new purposes. I was very much struck, and I feel sure the Committee was greatly struck by the fact that most of these sums were originally devoted to the purpose of enabling the Church to perform and maintain the rites of the Church in the more inaccessible parts of Scotland. I am standing here to-day as one of the representatives of those inaccessible parts to make a suggestion to my right hon. Friend. I hope I am in order in making this suggestion, because I for one am not prepared to vote for this Money Resolution—

The CHAIRMAN: I would like to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that discussion can be continued on the Resolution after the Amendment has been disposed of. I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman is going to say, but possibly he might find it more convenient to make his suggestion then.

Mr. MACPHERSON: No, my suggestion is a very short one, and I think you will say that I am in order. I wax saying that I am not prepared to vote for this Money Resolution unless I can get some guarantee from my right hon. Friend that the point I make will be considered by him, and that he can get an equal guarantee that the point will be considered by the joint Church. The funds which are redeemable now are funds, as I said, which were originally used in the main for the purpose of maintaining the ordinances in the North of Scotland. A great part of the North of Scotland is provided for by a Church which is called the Free Church of Scot-
land, or the Church of Scotland Free. That Church claims, and I think justly claims, that it is mainly responsible for the maintenance of the ordinances of the Church, in accordance with the old standards of faith, for the vast majority of the Gaelic-speaking population. They say, and rightly if I gauge accurately the point which my right hon. Friend has been making, that in any re-allocation upon the redemption of funds, their claims ought to be considered. They say that they have, right along throughout. history, maintained the old standards of faith from the time of the origin of the patrimony of the Church, and that they are now in the main responsible for the maintenance of religious ordinances in the more inaccessible parts.
The point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Barr)—and in my judgment not a bad point—that the more you give in State grants the more likely churches are to be erected which are totally unnecessary from the point of view of membership or anything else. My point, on the other hand, is this, that if you have sums of this kind the proper thing to do is to devote part, in any case, of those sums to those localities where one and probably two churches are necessary, and no more, in order to make it easy for them to maintain their congregations and maintain the ordinances of their churches. I would suggest, therefore, that my right hon. Friend should use every endeavour to recognise the claims of those congregations in the North of Scotland, and ask the joint Church to enter into an arrangement with the Free Church of Scotland to have a committee appointed to review the religious position and the religious needs in the North of Scotland, and to find out how much should be given to them for maintaining, and maintaining alone in certain parts, the ordinances of religion of both Churches. I hope the Committee will agree with me that something of that nature is necessary as well as fair.

Mr. JOHNSTON: In the restricted form in which this discussion may now only take place, I must confine myself to one point which I do not think has yet been made this afternoon. Before I make that point, I should like to compliment the Lord Advocate on the very clear and very explicit way in which he stated what, in
his view, was the historical origin of the charges we are discussing this afternoon. Personally, I think he might have gone a little further back, and discussed where the beneficent donors of those lands to the Church got them. It is all very well to begin at an arbitrary point in history and say: "Here a kindly donor gives land to the Church, and the Church in turn may dispose of these revenues as it chooses."

Sir W. LANE MITCHELL: Go back to Adam.

Mr. JOHNSTON: At any rate, we might, without very great, historical difficulty, go back to the period when large areas of common land, land belonging to the burghs, at any rate in Scotland, were stolen from those burghs.

The CHAIRMAN: I do not understand how the hon. Member connects this with the question of whether a whole price or life interest price should be paid for redemption.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I can see the difficulty, hut it is essential for the purpose I have in view that. I should in some degree enter my caveat against the arbitrary period taken by the Lord Advocate when he began his historical disquisition this afternoon. What is the purpose of this Money Resolution? It is very simple and very clear. Are we to redeem on a basis of life interest, or are we not? The Government proposes that the Treasury, that is the Government, should have powers under Clause 18 of the Bill to arrange with the Church of Scotland, or any committee or institution of the Church, or any minister or precentor, for redemption by the payment of an agreed capital sum. Is this House going to give the present Government unlimited powers to agree with the Church of Scotland, with the financial managers of the Church of Scotland, to put it in another way, to arrange a deal between themselves? What number of years' purchase is it to be? What composition is likely to take place if it is left to the present Government, to the present Treasury Bench? What sort of terms? How is the public likely to be skinned if it is left to the present Government to arrange with the financial managers of the Church of Scotland? Therefore, an Amendment has been put down somewhat to limit
the amount of redemption payment that is required to be paid. Objection has been taken by the Lord Advocate that the terms of this Amendment are not such as would be looked at by the financial managers of the Church of Scotland. On the other hand, will not the Lord Advocate give this Committee—perhaps he will give me his attention just for one second—before this Vote is taken, some indication of what is in his mind, or what is in the Government's mind, as to, shall we say, the number of years' purchase they are likely to offer, that they are likely to discuss? Or are we to be asked to vote unlimited powers to this Government to come to any terms they choose with the managers of the Church of Scotland? I submit that it is bad financial business for this House to give this Government, or indeed any Government, carte blanche, unlimited powers to spend public money, and give no indication whatever to the House as to any self-imposed limits that they may have before they enter on the discussion. On these grounds I trust that if we do not get such an assurance from the Lord Advocate, the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Barr) will press his Amendment to a Division.

5.0 P.M.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I want to join with the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston) in the point he has raised. I have always taken the line that Parliament, when granting any financial aid or assistance, or sums of money, ought at least to name a definite sum, and, further, have some control over the disposal of the money. It seems to me that we are giving under this Resolution a free hand to the authorities connected with the Church to use any sum they like, and in regard to the rate of interest the Treasury have not fixed the rate. When Scotland is faced with other matters dealing with parish councils we fix a rate of interest when they are borrowing from Government sources, and I suggest that there ought to be a definite rate of interest on all borrowings from the Treasury in connection with this matter. I am sure the Noble Lord (Lord Banbury) who used to represent the City of London in this House would have condemned this practice of handing out sums of money in regard to
which the interest was no definitely fixed, and afterwards having no control as to how it should be spent.
I would like to ask how much of this money is to go to the Free Church? The Free Church largely carries on the work of religious thought and the spreading of religious ideas in the North of Scotland. Therefore it is of the utmost importance to the Free Church to know if any of that sum of money is to be used for the propagation of Free Church principles in Scotland. This House has no right to hand over public money to this group, who may spend it in a foolish way. Quite apart from the rights or wrongs of this Bill, the mere issue of allowing Government money raised from the taxpayers of this country to be arbitrarily dealt with without reference to Parliament is a wrong principle, and unjust, and no Government, whether it is Liberal, Labour or Tory, has a right to come and ask Parliament for a Resolution a that kind. Apart from the Scottish Church question, I hope English Members of this House will join with us in condemning what I believe is a bad practice, which, if allowed to continue, will land the Treasury and the finances of this country in a morass worse than it is in at the present time.

Sir W. MITCHELL: May I say, in answer to t he speech which has been made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson), that if this Amendment be carried there will be no money for the Free Church or for anyone else after the expiry of the life interest. The hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Barr) never does state a case in full, but in reply to his argument, I should like to point out that this is only a question of whether the Church of Scotland is to be allowed to go on paying out as it has been doing year after year. As a matter of fact the Church has the actual disposal of this money at the present time, and has had for centuries. and there is no intention by this Bill of making any difference. The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) said that by this Measure we are giving the Church complete control. He used that argument as if it were something new, whereas as a matter of fact the Church has had complete control for years. How has the whole case been brought up?

The CHAIRMAN: I must point out to the hon. Member that this Amendment only deals with the terms of redemption. Very likely, on the Third Reading of the Bill. Mr. Speaker may rule that the arguments now being used by the hon. Member are in order.

Sir W. MITCHELL: With regard to the terms of redemption, we may take it for granted that unless those terms are advantageous to the Treasury they will not commute. I am quite satisfied that the Treasury will not do anything inimical to the interests of the Treasury. I hope we shall soon have a decision on this point., and that we shall soon see the end of this Rill.

Mr. STEPHEN: I wish to associate myself with what has been said by my colleagues in asking the Lord Advocate to consider the granting of some concession to the point of view which we represent. In Scotland on this question there is a very strong minority, and I think that minority is entitled to have its views taken into full consideration. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson) stated the point of view of the Free Church of Scotland, and the necessity for conserving their interests. The last speaker suggested that if we pass this Amendment it would rule out the considerations of the interests of the members of the Free Church of Scotland. I do not think so. I know there are two strong definite opinions on this question in Scotland, but I think there should be some give and take on the part of the Government in order to try to meet the views of both sides. It is suggested that the Church of Scotland has had certain powers in connection with this matter all along, and that there is nothing new in the power that is being taken under this Resolution and under this Bill. I would like to dispute the contention nut forward by the previous speaker in this respect, because all along the Church of Scotland with regard to these payments has had a certain necessary connection with the State. and they have also come under the control of the House of Commons. and that has been one of the reasons for some of the ecclesiastical struggles which have taken place in Scotland in the past.
I agree with what has already been said that it is not good business for this
Committee to give the Treasury the right to contract for a certain sum in redemption of those interests without the House of Commons being consulted. I do not believe that it is good business, or good for the House of Commons, to lose any control in connection with a matter like this. I do not believe that it is a good thing for the Treasury to have this responsibility thrown upon it. In some matters, perhaps, this would not be of much importance, but so far as I have seen, when the Treasury or the House of Commons is dealing with Churches or Ecclesiastical Corporations, there. is likely to be imposed upon them influences of a kind that it is very difficult to think the Lord Advocate might agree to a definite figure being put in this Resolution. There certainly should be something more definite than is the case at the present time, in order that the House of Commons may know, and the people of Scotland may know, what price the Church of Scotland is taking in this connection.
There is one other matter I wish to raise in connection with the proposed redemption. It is in the mind of most of us in Scotland that behind this redemption in the future is the proposed union of the Church of Scotland with the United Free Church of Scotland to which I myself belong. Of course I am aware that that is something in the future which never take place, but I think that is another reason why this Committee and the House of Commons should take the utmost care that the interests of the contracting parties in the future may be fully protected as well as the smaller communion of the Free Church of Scotland. This is necessary in the North and North-West of Scotland as regards the interests of the members of the various branches of the Church in those districts. This redemption will be very bad business for all those other communions because those negotiations in the future, if they break down, may put the United Free Church of Scotland in the position of coming back to its old demand to the State for the disendownment of the Church of Scotland, and then we shall be face to face with a much more difficult proposition if these redemption proposals are carried to-day. For these reasons I appeal to the Lord Advocate for some concession to the minority opinion in Scotland in the United
Free Church of Scotland, because I have been expressing the almost unanimous opinion of that Church and of all those other religious denominations of Scotland which have an interest in this connection. In conclusion, I want to say that I speak in no spirit of hostility to the union of the Churches in Scotland. I myself would like to see that union taking place, but I believe that the Church of Scotland is making a great mistake in the way in which it is proceeding in seeking to extort the last pound, in the way that it can, in connection with these various funds with which it has been endowed, and in being prepared to make no concession to the others, who have very great interests in the matter.

Mr. RUSSELL: The hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Barr), in his opening remarks, said that the issue was a clear and simple one, namely, a charge upon the Consolidated Fund. I think, however. that it has been shown, in the course of the speeches we have heard from the other side, that an issue far wider and more far-reaching than that really arises out of this Resolution. It is nothing less than the duty of the State as a trustee of Church property. There is a religious patrimony in Scotland. It is held partly in the form of teinds by heritors and partly by burghs and cities like Edinburgh, Glasgow, or Dundee. These public bodies are trustees of part of religious patrimony of Scotland. So also—

The CHAIRMAN: I must point out to the hon. Member that the question before the Committee is merely that of the terms of redemption. It may be that the hon. Member is bringing his argument. to that. hut I must point that out to him.

Mr. RUSSELL: The purpose of my argument, Mr. Hope, is to show that the State at the present moment is likewise in the position of a trustee of a part of the religious patrimony of Scotland, and the issue that I suggest is now being raised here is the State's attitude to corporate property, and particularly Church property. The State has a duty by private property and it has a duty by corporate property. Corporate property is different from private property in this respect, that it is public in the uses to which it is put and in the conditions under which it is used, but private with respect
to those who are interested in it. I want. to point out that these payments out of the Exchequer, out of the Consolidated Fund, are not a charge upon the Consolidated Fund in the respect that they are a charge which has to be met by taxation of the people. These payments are made by the State as a trustee.

Mr. JAMES BROWN: This Amendment makes the position much more difficult even than the original Motion, and as you, Mr. Hope, have already ruled so often that we dare not meander into Scottish ecclesiastical history, we shall have to confine ourselves to the Money Resolution. I am amazed at my hon. Friends behind me, who will insist on trying to make this Committee believe, as they tried to make the House believe on the Second Reading, that the Church of Scotland is out for spoliation. If hon. and right hon. Gentlemen were listening to the very clear statement of the Lord Advocate I do not see how that argument could have come from any of them, because, after all, the Treasury is not going to suffer in this. The Treasury will benefit in the same way by the redemption as the ordinary heritors will, we hope, benefit ultimately. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh, and f have no objection to their laughing if they laugh in the right place. We do not laugh in the Auld Kirk we do business there; and I trust that being able to do business never will, as it never yet has, detracted from the religious fervour of any people. After all, the labourer is worthy of his hire; the church has to be maintained. and I do not know of any better way of maintaining the church than the method which the Church of Scotland has been following up to the present time. There is to be no new charge on the Treasury. The Treasury will redeem, and if, as I believe, the ordinary heritor will benefit in the end by the redemption of the teinds, so will the Treasury benefit by the redemption and by this being taken off the Consolidated Fund altogether. I do not know. Mr. Hope, whether you will permit me to refer to the Free Church, but so far as I am personally concerned, I uphold everything that has been said about. the earnest endeavour of the Free Church after religious ordinances in the North and North-West of Scotland, and if it were possible in Committee I should very
gladly welcome some effort or endeavour whereby the Free Church of Scotland would be enabled to carry on her religious work—that is to say if the Free Church itself does not become a participator in the union that we are contemplating, and so broaden the basis of the union of the Churches in Scotland. Having said that, I do not require to say any more. I want the Committee to come back to this: We are trying—and, because it is a financial matter, we have to bring it here—to get this Committee, and I am sure we shall get the Committee, to agree to this being done, and I do not think it will hurt the Church in any shape or form. It does not impose any new burden; all that it does is to allow the Treasury to redeem these moneys. so that the new and greater Church that is to come into being will be able to set its house in order from every point of view, and thereby so to go into its new life that it will be calculated to do a great amount of good to the people of Scotland. We are not going back to the origin of e teinds, to—in the classic language of one of my hon. Friends behind me—the skinning of the people—

Mr. JOHNSTON: John Knox used stronger language than that.

Mr. BROWN: John Knox was living in very stirring times, and said some very plain things, but I do not think he would have condescended to such a word as was used by my hon. Friend, because it is not true, in the first place, and John Knox was a speaker of truth if he was anything at all. In any case, we are dealing with what has long been recognised as the patrimony of the Church, and the patrimony of the Church as rightfully belongs to her as any other lands or any other patrimony belongs to any other private individual.

The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid the hon. Gentleman is getting a little wide of the question of redemption.

Mr. BROWN: I trust I shall not transgress further. All that I wanted to say has now been said. I want the Committee to remember that we are not imposing any burden on the Treasury. We may, as I think has been already said, trust the Treasury to make a very good bargain indeed. All that we are asking is that this Resolution should be passed to-day, so that we can get into Committee
and complete the Bill, as every true Scotsman desires.

Mr. MAXTON: Members on this side of the Committee always listen with the very greatest respect to any guidance that is given to us on ecclesiastical matters by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. J. Brown). The high position he has held in the Established Church of Scotland entitles to the fullest consideration any view that he puts before us, but when he asks us to pass this Resolution because he says, "I believe that the Treasury will make a good bargain, and I believe that the nation will ultimately save money," without adducing any arguments in support of it, it puts us in a very difficult position, and it makes us think that the definition current in Scotland with reference to faith and the Established Church has some foundation in fact, namely, that faith is a belief in those things which we know to be not true. We want, although it may be wrong of us in an ecclesiastical and spiritual matter, to ask that we should get the actual round figures that the Treasury is having imposed upon it in this matter. I have made such rough calculations as a comparatively inexperienced person in financial matters may, and I conclude that, if we pass this Resolution to-day, we may be involved, on the very lowest estimate, in a capital expenditure of £500,000, while, taking a-higher estimate we may be involved in an expenditure of £2,500,000—a difference of £2,000,000. I consider that that is a very wide margin. If I were coming before the House of Commons to ask for a couple of millions for some social purpose—for unemployment, for mothers' pensions, for the increase of old age pensions—there would be a very close scrutiny of the proposals before those two millions would be granted. But here they come and ask practically for a free hand to conclude any bargain of any basis, and we are to tell them, "Yes, we know that we shall be involved in at least £500,000. We cannot. be sure, but we think £2,500,000 would be the extreme outside limit." I should not object to a very much larger expenditure than £2,000,000 if I believed that it was going to mean a real revival in the spiritual life of Scotland. I think the expenditure would be fully justified, even by a Treasury which is largely contributed to from episcopalian sources. I believe if
we could have some reasonable hope that the expenditure of this £2,000,000 would give the Scots a new inspiration, a new impetus to a higher life, it would be money well expended. But as far as I understand the spiritual movement, they do not start by looking after the financial basis. They start by people going out carrying neither meat nor scrip and saluting no man by the way. This proposition for a new revival and a better understanding among the Presbyterian sections in Scotland seems to me on a par with the efforts which were made by our hon. Friends below the Gangway on this side to set up a. Commission to inquire into what was wrong with them. They lost their soul, and they set up a, Commission to find it.

The CHAIRMAN: It is not proposed to ask the price of the redemption of their souls.

Mr. MAXTON: I think, though you may have some difficulty in seeing it, that there is a connection. I am arguing that we are asked here to give an unspecified sum, a variable amount between £500,000 and £2,500,000, for the spiritual restoration of Scottish life, or the restoration and extension of the spiritual life of Scotland, and I am expressing the view that the highest expenditure suggested in this Resolution would be fully justified if there was any hope of achieving the desired object. But I say spiritual developments do not take place by the planking down of large sums of money or, using the parallel of hon. Members below the Gangway, who, having set out to find their lost souls, have a Commission, which reports that the first thing necessary if they are going to get a new soul is to raise a general fund of £1,000,000.

The CHAIRMAN: I understand the object of the Resolution is not so much for a spiritual purpose as for the Treasury to discharge its liabilities once for all to the Church of Scotland.

Mr. MAXTON: If I believed that this would achieve that end in a reasonable and legitimate way and we could get rid of the whole proposition once and for ever. I should believe that £2,000,000 was well spent, just as I believe that if
we could get rid of this for the expenditure of £1,000,000 the money would be well spent. But apart from what hon Members seem to regard as something humorous, I think the Lord Advocate due to give the Committee some definite idea as to the basis upon which they propose to settle up these various outstanding claims. Some of us on these benches believe that the right and legitimate and proper way is to take each one of these existing charges, charges that we pay now, continue the payment of them as an annual payment during the lifetime of the present holders, and as each of the present holders dies off the charge upon the fund for that particular individual ceases, and the annual payments from year to year would steadily diminish until they finished altogether. That seems to be a fair and a right and a just way of meeting existing claims upon the Consolidated Fund, and a much better way than this indefinite phrase that we have here," by the payment of an agreed capital sum," the agreement to be entered into quite outside the purview of this House and in a way that we could not possibly criticise, but which we should have to accept as a fait accompli at some stage in the progress of the Bill. I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will not take the Committee into his confidence. I am sure either the Lord Advocate or the Secretary for Scotland has given some consideration to what they regard as the maximum sum the Treasury would be justified in expending on this item, and I think we ought to have what is in their minds on the matter. I admit that there might be some latitude necessary as between a minimum and a maximum sum, and I am not prepared to he niggling about it. But I think a latitude between £500,000 and £2,500,000 is much too wide for this House to give to any Minister, however responsible he may be.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: I concur heartily in the expression of opinion which has been vented by Members on this side of the Committee. I recognise, of course, that my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. J. Brown) not only expresses his own personal view, but represents a large body of feeling in the Church with which he is associated. He has been particularly anxious to emphasise the business aspect of it,
though he was not prepared to give us these important statistics which would help us to arrive at a finding. I heard the Lord Advocate expounding on one or two of the Amendments upstairs, and he also was emphasising this point. After examining the thing fairly well, and taking an all-round point of view, it looks as if the whole matter was one of business and nothing but business. That, I think, is the most disappointing feature about it. One hon. Member has already stated a point which is being emphasised in Scotland by a section of the Press as to the prospects of union with the United Free Church, that there is nothing actually laid down to warrant that conception as really on the way. It would be quite a probable development that, even after this Bill went through, nothing of the kind transpired.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must connect his argument with the question of redemption of annual payments.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: If we take it as it is presented, on the basis of redemption, we arc going to face another aspect of it that I think comes within the range of the Chairman's ruling, and that is that carrying through this redemption is going to make is an exceptionally difficult matter to face any proposition which might arise in the renewal of that movement which sought to disestablish the Church. And when we think of the essentials surrounding the spiritual interest of Scotland, this phase of it, instead of facilitating that which ought to be part of the object in view, is really going to retard anything of the kind. The churches as they stand to-day are showing a very considerable decline in many quarters, especially in industrial quarters, and this phase of it which is being so strongly driven by a very limited number of influential people in connection with the Church who have brought this matter to the point we are at to-day, that procedure and the line upon which they have gone, the circumscribed plan whereby they have focused a considerable amount of feeling in support of their project, leaves as a matter of fact—and they are well aware of it—a large body of opinion within the Church which is opposed to the proposition altogether.

The CHAIRMAN: I have listened with great care to the hon. Member. and I cannot see that his argument has the slightest relevance to the terms of redemption. It may be a very proper speech to make on the Second or Third Reading, but the very limited question whether the Treasury should redeem these. payments, and at what price, does not lend itself to these considerations.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: It is difficult to get what I want brought out under your ruling, but I will come closer to it. Why should it be possible to have this proposal put up for us without. anything more definite that a minimum statement of anticipation of £500,000? Why should it be possible for any hon. Member to say, as has just been said, that it might even range to the amount of £2,500,000? Is there nothing better in the way of an estimate as to how it will work out than that? If we are going into a thing of. this kind surely, after all the negotiations which have taken place and the investigations which have been made from the historical point of view stated by the Lord Advocate himself, we might have been able to get something which would give more definite information on that aspect. Keeping to that one point. that we have before us to-day it only intensifies in the mind of the general body of the public—and there is a large body unfortunately who are out of the range of the Church—this very same plan is only emphasising the material aspect of the whole concern, and, in reality, instead of facilitating any spiritual development it will hamper the whole progress of. agreement from the ecclesiastical point of view.

The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): I would like to say a few words in reply to the Debate, and then I would appeal to the Committee to come to a decision on the Amendment. We have been discussing what some hon. Members have called a business proposition. As I understand the question, it is an arrangement by which the power of-bargaining will be permitted between the Church and the Treasury for the redemption of certain sums of money which the Treasury is due to pay at the present time. Various estimates have been made by hon. Members, more particularly the hon Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton), as to what this redemption will entail for
the country. If I have followed him aright, he has taken estimates on 25 years' purchase and 125 years' purchase.

Mr. MAXTON: I may be over-calculating the annual amounts involved, but my two estimates were based on 12 years' purchase and 25 years' purchase, and not on the extravagantly long period suggested by the right hon. Member.

Sir J. GILMOUR: Then I am afraid the hon. Member must have been over-estimating, because I understand that the total sum involved is only £20,200.

Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: That is the annual liability.

Sir J. GILMOUR: The annual liability in the Schedule of the Bill is set down at £20,226. That being the case, I think it might well be left to negotiations between the Church and the Treasury. It would not be proper for me to say more than that, in my judgment, the Church will be very fortunate if they make a

Division No. 28.]
AYES.
[5:50 p.m.


Adamson, W. M. (Start., Cannock)
Heyday, Arthur
Scurr, John


Alexander. A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hayes, John Henry
Sexton, James


Ammon, Charles George
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Smillie, Robert


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hudson, J. H. Huddersfield
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Barnes, A.
John. William (Rhondda, West)
Snell, Harry


Batey, Joseph
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Stamford, T. W.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Kelly, W. T.
Stephen, Campbell


Broad, F. A
Kirkwood, D.
Sutton, J. E.


Bromfield, William
Lansbury, George
Taylor, R. A.


Bromley, J.
Lee, F.
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)


Buchanan, G.
Lowth, T.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Lunn, William
Thurtle, E


Clowes, S.
Mackinder, W.
Tinker, John Joseph


Cluse, W. S.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P


Compton, Joseph
March, S.
Varley, Frank B.


Connolly, M.
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Viant, S. P.


Cove, W. G.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wallhead, Richard C


Dalton, Hugh
Murnin, H.
Warne, G. H.


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Oliver, George Harold
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Davies. Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Palin, John Henry
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Day, Colonel Harry
Parkinson. John Allen (Wigan)
Wedgwood. Rt. Hon. Josiah


Duncan, C.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Welsh, J. C.


Dunnico, H.
Ponsonby, Arthur
Westwood, J.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwelity)
Potts, John S
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Greenall, T.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Coine)
Riley, Ben
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Ritson, J.
Wright, W.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth. Pontypool
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F.O.(W. Bromwich)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Groves, T.
Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)



Grundy, T. W.
Robinson. W. C. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hardie, George D.
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Mr. Barr and Mr. Maxton.


Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Scrymgeour, E.





NOES


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Apsley, Lord
Barnston, Major Sir Harry


Albery, Irving James
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Beamish, Captain T. P. H.


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Bahour, George (Hampstead)
Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)


Allen. J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Bainiel Lord
Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)

bargain on something like 20 years' purchase, and not on the other periods which have been mentioned. The right hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson) asked that some measure of a pledge should be given that certain of the outlying portions of the Highland areas might receive some benefit from these funds. I am not in a position to give anything in the nature of a pledge, but I would say that I feel fairly satisfied, from my knowledge of the Church and those who control her destinies, that they will be very ready to recognise their duty as a National Church, and I would express a hope that if and when they come to consider these particular matters, if they do not deal directly themselves with these problems, they may do it through a sister Church. I hope that the Committee will now be prepared to go to a Division.

Question put, "That those words be there added."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 101; will be very fortunate if they make a Noes, 294.

Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-Berry,
Fremantle, Lieut, Colonel Francis E.
Moore, Sir Newton J.


Berry, St. George
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Bethell, A.
Ganzonl, Sir John
Moreing, Captain A. H.


Betterton, Henry B.
Gates, Percy
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Gee, Captain R.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Murchison, C. K.


Blundell, F. N.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph


Boothby, R. J. G.
Goff, Sir Park
Nelson, Sir Frank


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Neville, R. J.


Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart
Grentell, Edward C. (City of London)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W
Gretton, Colonel John
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Brass, Captain W.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert


Briggs, J. Harold
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Nuttall, Ellis


Briscoe, Richard George
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Oakley, T.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Ormsby Gore, Hon. William


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hammersley, S. S.
Owen, Major G.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Hanbury, C.
Pennefather, Sir John


Brown. Maj. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Penny, Frederick George


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Harland, A.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Brown, Brig.-Gen.H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Harrison, G. J. C.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
H artington, Marquess of
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Buckingham, Sir H.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Philipson, Mabel


Bullock, Captain M.
Hawke, John Anthony
Pleiou, D. P.


Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Pilcher, G.


Alan Burman. J. B.
Henderson, Capt. R. R (Oxf'd, Henley)
Pliditch, Sir Philip


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Butt, Sir Alfred
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Price, Major C. W. M.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Raine, W.


Caine, Gordon Hall
Henniker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A
Ramsden, E.


Campbell, E. T.
Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'hy)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Rawson, Alfred Cooper


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Rees, Sir Beddoe


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hohier, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Chapman, Sir S.
Holland, Sir Arthur
Rice, Sir Frederick


Charleton, H. C.
Homan, C. W. J.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Ropner, Major L.


Christie. J. A.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Rose, Frank H.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Moseley)
Ruggies-Brise, Major E. A.


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Rye F. G.


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n')
Salmon, Major I.


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Hunter-Weston. Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Cooper, A. Duff
Huntingfield, Lord
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Cope, Major William
Hurd, Percy A.
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Coupon, J. B.
Hurst, Gerald B.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Hutchison, G.A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Courthope. Lieut.-Col. George L. Craig,
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Sandson, Lord


Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)
Hiffe, Sir Edward M.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D


Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Savery, S. S.


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Jacob, A. E.
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)


Crook, C. W.
Jephcott, A. R.
Shaw, Lt.-Col.A. D. Mcl.(Renfrew, W)


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts. Westb'y)


Crookshank,Cpt.H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Shepperson, E. W.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Dalkeith, Earl of
Lamb, J. Q.
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Dalziel, Sir Davison
Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Col. George R.
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ.,Belfst)


Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Skelton, A. N.


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine,C.)


Davison. Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Locker-Lampoon, G. (Wood Green)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Loder, J. de V.
Smithers, Waldron


Dennison. R.
Looker, Herbert William
Spender Clay, Colonel H.


Doyle, Sir N. Grattan
Lougher, L.
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Drewe, C.
Lowe, Sir Francis William
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F.(Will'sden, E.)


Duckworth, John
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G.(Westm'eland)


Eden, Captain Anthony
Luce, Major-Gen Sir Richard Harman
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Lumley, L. R.
Storry Deans, R.


Edwards, John H. (Accrington)
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Elliot, Captain Walter E.
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Ellis, R. G.
Mac Intyre, Ian
Styles, Captain H. Walter


England, Colonel A.
McLean, Major A.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Macmillan, Captain H.
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Tasker, Major R. Inigo


Everard, W. Lindsay
Macquisten, F. A.
Templeton, W. P.


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Thompson, Luke. (Sunderland)


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Falls. Sir Charles F.
Maklns, Brigadier-General E.
Thomson, Sir W.Mitchell-(Croydon.S.)


Fanshawe, Commander G, D.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Tinne, J. A.


Fielden, E. B.
Margesson, Captain D.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P


Ford, P. J.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Waddington, R.


Forestier-Walker, L.
Meller, R. J.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Forrest, W.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Fraser, Captain Ian
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles




Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)
Winby, Colonel L. P.
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).


Watts, Dr. T.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Wood, Sir S. Hill-(High Peak)


Wells, S. R
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Wheler, Major Granville C. H.
Wise, Sir Fredric
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple
Wolmer, Viscount
Wragg, Herbert


Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torguay)
Womersley, W. J.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)



Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Wood, Rt. Hon. E. (York, W.R., Ripon)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd)
Wood, E.(Chest'r. Stalyb'dge & Hyde)
Commander B. Eyres Monsell and'




Colonel Gibbs.

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — PUBLIC HEALTH (SCOTLAND) AMENDMENT BILL.

Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [25th February], "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Question again proposed.

6.0 P.M.

Mr. WILLIAM ADAMSON: We on these benches are quite pleased that the Secretary for Scotland has seen fit to introduce this Bill, notwithstanding the limitation of its character. Although the price of insulin has decreased of late yet, in cases in which it is required by the poorer section of the community, it still imposes upon them a considerable drain. When I introduced a Bill of a character similar to this last year I calculated that the provision of insulin would involve a weekly expenditure of something like 4s. or 5s for each person who had to use that drug. Notwithstanding that the price may have fallen since then, the provision of this drug, for certain sections of our people, still imposes a considerable drain on their resources. Under existing legislation a considerable proportion of our people are entitled to be provided with insulin. For instance, those who are insured under the National Health Insurance Act can be provided through the medium of their approved societies. Persons for whom the Poor Law has to make provision can also get it through the Poor Law authorities, and expectant mothers, nursing mothers and their infants and children under five years of age can also get this drug in cases of diabetes through the maternity and welfare schemes. The remainder of the community, which includes workmen who are working on their own account and the wives and children of insured persons, are still left without any means of being
provided with insulin in cases of diabetes. Under the Public Health Acts in England the local authorities are empowered to provide the poorer people with this drug where necessary. In the Bill which I introduced last year provision was also made to extend the powers to other diseases than diabetes, by an Order of the Scottish Board of Health, the object being to enable medicine to be available in the event of any equally effective cure being found for some other diseases such as cancer. This provision has been omitted: from the Bill introduced by the Secretary for Scotland. I enter my emphatic protest and the protest of my colleagues on these benches against this omission.
When the Bill was under discussion last week, the Secretary for Scotland was asked if the matter could be remedied by an Amendment in Committee, and his answer was that that was a matter for the Chairman, but I find, on referring to the Title of this Bill, that such an Amendment would not be in order. I think that the Secretary for Scotland knew that such an Amendment would not be in order: and hence the guarded nature of the answer that he gave. What we have to say on this Bill must therefore be said either on Second or Third Beading. I cannot understand the reason for the Secretary for Scotland or the local authorities opposing the extension of the provisions, of this Bill to other diseases when as effective a cure has been found as insulin has proved itself to be. Such an extension would enable our local authorities to deal effectively and adequately with the health of our people under proper safeguards. The safeguards were provided in the Bill which we introduced last year. The extension was to take place only after an Order extending the powers under the Bill had been laid on the Table of both Houses of Parliament for 21 days, and had not been objected to.
I am aware that during the course of last year's discussion on the Bill one of the supporters of the Government,
one of the Members for the Scottish Universities, pointed out that, in the event of as effective a cure being found for other diseases as insulin has proved itself to be in the case of diabetes, the necessary legislation could be passed through in order to make this new treatment available. That means a waste of valuable time during which our poor are left without treatment. I am opposed to that entirely. What we want in the case of serious illness is promptness. 'We may have as effective a remedy for cancer discovered at any moment. The whole scientific world is concentrated upon this most dreaded of all diseases, and a remedy may be found which may be as effective in cases of cancer as insulin is in the case of diabetes, and which should be made as freely available for our people. One of the medical Members of this House last year told us in the Debate that one out of every seven persons over the age of 45 dies of this dreadful disease. It is appalling to think of the consequences of any delay taking place in applying a cure for such a fell disease. I do not care whether the delay is because of ignorance or the desire for economy. It is simply tragic that any one of our people should he allowed to die for want of the application of an effective remedy for the disease from which he suffered.
By the terms of this Bill many persons in Scotland arc still kept under a disability as compared with their fellow-citizens in England. One of the reasons which I gave for the introduction of the Bill last year was that I thought that the poor person in Scotland should be placed on an equality with the poor person in England, but this Bill keeps the poor person in Scotland in a-worse position than his fellow-citizens in England. In England any local authority may, with the consent of the Ministry of Health, themselves provide or contract with any person to provide a temporary supply of medicine and medical assistance for the poor inhabitants of the district. That is a much wider and a more generous provision than is made for the poorer section of the community in Scotland under this Bill. I cannot he a party to the Second Reading of this Bill, much as I desire that it should be placed on the Statute Book, without entering my emphatic protest against its limiting nature. The opening terms of
the Bill, in my opinion, preclude the possibility of any Amendment in Committee in the direction which we would desire, and so strongly do I feel regarding the omission which has been made from this Bill, as compared with last year's Bill, that I shall have no alternative, unless we can get some indication from the Secretary for Scotland that he will be willing to make the extension which we desire, but to divide the House in order to register our protest against the omission.

Dr. DRUMMOND SHIELS: My right hon. Friend who has just spoken has covered pretty well the grounds of our objection to this Bill. We do not object to the Bill for what is in it, but for what has been left out of it, and our only method of registering our protest is to take the action which the light hon. Gentleman has suggested. Surely it is not an unreasonable thing to have a provision ill the Bill that when, in the opinion of the Scottish Board of Health, a remedy has bean found for some disease other than diabetes, an Order should be made, placed on the Table of both Houses of Parliament, where it could lie for 21 days, only then being operative as an Act of Parliament. I know that this procedure has been criticised as not effective, hut it is quite obvious that if there was any serious objection to such an Order, ways and means could be found of making that objection effective in this House. From what we know of the Scottish Board of Health, of its staff and its administration, it would not he likely to make any such Order unless there was very good ground for it. I am sure that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary will agree with me in that opinion.
I am aware, of course, that the Government were influenced by the objection of local authorities, and that is a position with which we must sympathise, because local authorities have to administer this Act, and their objections are entitled to respect. But it is quite well known that the objections which were urged by local authorities were not urged very seriously, and were entirely on financial grounds. At the present time local authorities have a very heavy public health expenditure, but they are relieved from a great deal of that by Treasury grants. In the case of maternity and child welfare they get 50 per cent., and in the case of venereal
disease as much as 75 per cent. of the cost. There is no proposal in this Bill for any Treasury assistance. On the last occasion on which this matter was before the House, the Under-Secretary suggested that the Bill ought to have been preceded by a Financial Resolution, so that some such contribution could have been made and local authorities to some extent relieved. Apparently he himself has not been any more successful this year in softening die hearts of Treasury officials, and has had to bring in this Bill without a Financial Resolution so that the whole cost of its administration will fall upon the local authorities. In this particular matter, the. expense is not very serious. It is estimated that the total cost of supplying insulin for diabetes will be less than £5,000 for the whole country.
This general principle of ours, which was laid down in the other Bill, is one which surely must commend itself to every Member of the House, and, if local' authorities, on any ground other than the mere financial ground, oppose this provision. I am sure they do not properly represent the views of their constituents. For I am sure, that broad principle will be accepted by the. great bulk of our people throughout the country, namely, that any remedy for any disease should be immediately available to every section of the community. As my right hon. Friend has said, the English people in this respect enjoy an advantage over the Scottish people. That is a thing which a Scotsman can never stand. By the English Public Health Act of 1875, powers were given which my right hon. Friend has described. I know that they are nominally temporary powers, but still they are powers, which do not require to he renewed or enlarged from time to time as is the case in regard to Scotland. Suppose, as my right hon. Friend suggested. that for cancer a new remedy were found. We would have to wait in Scotland until cases were found which had died for want of that remedy. because of poverty, before we could have the necessary agitation worked up to bring about an Act of Parliament.
We have been told that last year, in spite of this Bill not being on the Statute Book, insulin was given to poor people. It was given by straining the Regulations, local authorities being
given to understand that in the auditing of their accounts that item would not be too strictly scrutinised. It is very unsatisfactory that the business of the country should be carried on" on the nod "in that way. We know that cases did die, and it was because of these cases being known that the Board of Health was constrained to allow local authorities to exceed their powers in the way suggested. That is a very undesirable way of bringing such things to pass. For all these reasons we have very good grounds for our protest against this Bill. It would have been quite possible to have met the views of the local authorities. I am sure that their protest. was a protest made only in order to get financial assistance, and was not made with any serious view of combating the proposals which the Labour party laid down. This is clearly a case where the present Government has not improved n the Labour Government's Bill,
I dare say that most hon. Members have had a memorandum from the Scottish Branch of the Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain, in regard to the method of supplying insulin through the local authorities. That, of course, is a matter for Committee. Insulin does not need dispensing, but this Bill does not specifically mention insulin at all it speaks simply of the treatment of diabetes. It is therefore quite possible that other medicine might be given which may require some provision such as the Pharmaceutical Society suggests.
The Bill is one to which no one can object. Our protest, as I have said, is against what is not in it. It is very desirable that we should register our protest so that in any future legislation of this kind an Amendment of the 1897 Public Health Act of Scotland may be made giving this extended power to local authorities. This will enable them to grapple immediately with any disease for which a now remedy is found, and not oblige them to deny to the poorest class of the population what is easily available to those who are better off.

Captain ELLIOT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health, Scotland): We are indebted to the right hon. Gentleman, the former Secretary for Scotland (Mr. William Adamson), and to the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Dr. Shiels) for the clear and temperate way in which
they have stated their objections to this Bill, and I am certain that we shall be in general accord that the Bill is not one to which objection will be taken in any part. of the House. As to their specific contention that it should have included a general power to deal with all diseases, I may say that we left that out because it, was the express desire of the local authorities which have to administer this and other Acts. The reason was simple. They said," The expense under this Bill is a small matter, and we. are willing to bear the whole of it ourselves, but the suggested extensions of it are very wide, and if these are to be considered they should be considered en the Floor of the House on specific legislation brought forward by the Government, and not in the somewhat. surreptitious manner which obtains when an Order is laid on the Table of both Houses and becomes law if not objected to." We have not in any way limited the opportunities which will be available for the immediate introduction and the most rapid passage of legislation tending to the better use of any remedy which might be discovered. As the right hon. Gentleman has said, he had arranged that the Order should lie upon the Table of both Houses and become operative if it were not objected to by either House. Therefore, he was throwing this legislation, which was to be of benefit to the very poorest section of the community, to the mercy of the non-elected body in another place, and that other place would remain in a position of complete superiority, able at any moment to hold up for an indefinite time this beneficent legislation.
We are debating at the moment a purely hypothetical matter. No one denies that insulin is an exception. All that hon. Members opposite contend is that similar exceptions might arise in the future. Nobody denies that it has been possible, within the limits of our administrative system, to deal with this question and make this remedy available, not merely for the rich, but for the poorest of the poor. We say, therefore, that if this hypothetical instance arises it will be possible for us to deal with the emergency when it comes, and subsquently to have the matter debated upon the Floor of this House, where the relations between Parliament and the local authorities which will have to bear a large proportion of the expenditure, can be
thrashed out and, the objections of those great bodies be discussed and met. Considering all these things, we say that the Bill as it stands meets the emergency which has arisen. The hypothetical case is one which it is impossible for us to see all the bearings of.
The analogy of England and Scotland is not really justified by the facts of the case, because, as the right hon. Gentleman opposite has pointed out, in reading the comparable passage relating to the two countries he showed that the English Act. makes only a temporary provision, whereas we in this Bill arc taking power on a permanent footing to deal with the treatment of diabetes. The hon. Member for East Edinburgh will confirm the statement that the essence of this treatment is that it is not a temporary but a permanent thing, and that, as far as we can see, it supplies a deficiency in one of the glandular secretions of the body and will be required during the whole life of the person who is treated. Consequently, Scotland is being placed in a privileged position. because it is having its position regularised for the permanent administration of a remedy which we are now bound under Statute only to give in temporary fashion. For these reasons, while hon. Gentlemen opposite will no doubt register their protest against the fact that we have not given a wider scope to the Bill, I think we might be able to agree upon the main point of the Bill, I think we are all anxious to see the Bill passed into law, to see the position regularised and to see this wonderful new remedy made freely and legally available. to all sections of the community.

Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: I am afraid I cannot admit that the case which has just been put up by the hon. and gallant Gentleman is to any extent a satisfactory one and I am amazed that he should refuse this very excellent opportunity of equalising the Scottish law with the English law and of making it, as regards insulin and diabetes, a, little more definite. It may be perfectly true that, nominally, the English law confers only temporary powers upon local authorities, but the hon. and gallant Member knows that those temporary powers will not be taken away so long as there is need to exercise them. It is a sort of slip-shod habit of ours to do things temporarily and at the same time exer-
cise powers which everybody knows are not temporary at all. Let us put this matter on a footing that will not require tinkering and that will not require Ministers to bother this House in future when some new discovery has been made which requires legislation if it is to be put within the reach of the poor. That is the first point. The second point is that we are being asked in the Bill to improve public health legislation. Why then are we to have such a small Measure as this? Cannot we do something that will give' real power to local authorities to handle these questions as they arise. Our proposal last year was that, in the event of an extension, we should proceed by administrative Order, laying the Order on the Table of this House and in another place. We did not like that procedure. I should have preferred a more summary method of procedure, but why did we adopt it? Because hon. Members opposite, when they sat on this side of the House, objected to any other method. As a. matter of fact we had to hold up our Bill on account of the objections raised and, when the Bill went to another place, we were informed that unless we agreed to the deletion of this provision, even though it put the other place in a superior position for objecting, we would not get the Bill through at all.

Captain ELLIOT: Surely it is within the recollection of the right hon. Gentleman that so strongly did my hon. Friends and I object to the proposal which he introduced that we actually introduced and carried in Committee an Amendment to the effect that it should only be necessary to move in this House. We removed the other place which the right hon. Gentleman fought tooth and nail to retain.

Mr. MacDONALD: What I state is quite accurate. What the hon. and gallant Gentleman refers to did not remove the objection of the other place to the Bill and the Bill was hung up by the other place after going through Committee and after it was amended. I do not want to drive a bargain or to quibble about this matter. We were very anxious, and we are still anxious, to get an amendment of the public health law of Scotland which will give the local authorities wider powers than this Bill will give them to assist poor people who are stricken
with certain diseases, regarding which remedies have been discovered of the same nature as insulin in relation to diabetes. That is all. As a. Government we had to try to humour the House, we had to try to humour hon. Members opposite, and we had to try to humour the other place. We had all these perils to get over but even then the hon. and gallant Member is not entitled to use the word "surreptitious." If we took power to extend this Bill by administrative Order that is not surreptitious. There is not a single local authority in Scotland which would not know when that Order had been issued and when it was lying on the Table of the House. There is not a single local authority in Scotland, with any objection to the Order, which would not address itself to the hon. and gallant Gentleman or to some of us here and which would not put us in possession of all the objections to the Order. Under the Standing Orders of the House, the Order would have to be discussed, and no Government would have the power to prevent discussion. The Order would be considered by this House and in the other place, and if the local authorities desired protection against a wanton extension of this Bill, amended as we would like to see it amended, they would have ample security in the procedure which we proposed. The Government are losing a great opportunity of equalising Scottish and English public health law and an equally great opportunity of giving the local authorities powers which many of them would he only too glad to exercise in order to help people, other than those suffering from diabetes, to be cured of their diseases as soon as cures are discovered by medical science. We cannot allow the Bill to go through in its present limited state without making a protest, not against the Bill itself, but against the Government for throwing away or losing the opportunity which the Bill gives of making the law much more effective than it will he after the Bill has passed.

Colonel Sir ALEXANDER SPROT: I desire to speak on this Bill from the point of view of the local authorities. Hospitals and infirmaries are in two classes, one class being kept tip by public subscription and the other by local authorities. Speaking generally, the hospitals
maintained by local authorities deal with infectious diseases, that being a responsibility placed upon the local authorities in Scotland. Some people say that the other hospitals should also be placed upon the rates. That is a very big question which we cannot discuss at the moment, but the fact is that the local authorities' hospitals now deal with infectious diseases. This is not an infectious disease, and it has been proposed that the cost of insulin for diabetes should be a charge on the local authority. I have no objection whatever to that course. The cost will be small and the number of cases is not large, but when I hear an hon. Gentleman opposite who is, I believe, a medical man, say that the hospitals should deal with all sorts of remedies for all sorts of diseases, then I say it is introducing the thin end of the wedge of the policy of bringing all the hospitals upon the rates. I support the Bill, and I think it should be passed without further delay. The delay has not come from this side but from those upon the other side who seek to introduce other matters into it, and the sooner we pass the Bill as it stands, the better.

Mr. MAXTON: I congratulate my colleague the hon. and gallant Member for North Lanark (Sir A. Sprot) upon his entry into the realm of public health. Up to now, in the West of Scotland, we regarded him more as a military expert than as a health expert. I only wish he had taken the trouble to inform himself about the history of this Bill during the last Parliament. We all regret that he was not a Member of the last Parliament. We regret that fact almost as much as we regret the fact that he is a Member of this Parliament. If he borrowed from the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health a copy of the report of the Committee stage last year he will find the reason why this Bill did not pass on to the Statute Book last year was because of the very strenuous opposition which the hon. and gallant Gentleman, now Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health, put op during its progress through this House and in Committee, and the continuance of which, I have no doubt, he arranged for in the other place as well. He then took his stand on grounds which I am sure the hon. and gallant Gentleman for North Lanark would not sup-
port. The objection which the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health, as an Oppositionist, had to the extension of the Bill to diseases other than diabetes, was that just as we were then illegally treating diabetes cases without any legislative permission—rand just as we are doing it illegally at the present moment—so on any future occasion if any cure of a similar type were discovered the Scottish Board of Health, with the hon. and gallant Gentleman himself or some other at the helm, could illegally give the necessary permission to any local authority apply that particular treatment to the particular disease. Is that the theory of public administration to which the hon. and gallant Member for North Lanark is prepared to give his imprimatur—that whenever a Government Department wants to do something it should do it, whether it has legislative power or not? All that my right hon. Friend the Member for West Fife (Mr. William Adamson) asked in his Bill last year was that provision should be made for the very exceptional circumstances of a type of treatment being discovered for a particular disease which should bear the relation to that disease which insulin hears to diabetes. Insulin is, I think, wrongly described as a cure. It is a palliative, a removal of the most obnoxious symptoms, but a treatment that must he maintained in perpetuity, or during a long time, and only during the continuance of the treatment does the patient maintain something like normal health. All of us were thinking only of illnesses and treatments that were on a comparable footing to the relationship which the insulin treatment has to the disease of diabetes, and we thought it was a very narrow limit of power that was being given to the local authorities. If I am not mistaken, the words of this Bill are exactly the same as those of the right hon. Gentleman's Bill, except for the cutting out of the words in reference to similar or other diseases.
It is not a very big thing we are doing when we say that the local authority shall have included power to make such arrangements as they may think fit. It is purely a permissive power. We are not saying that the local authorities must make arrangements for insulin or any other treatment, but we would give them power, if they think fit, to make the necessary provision. I do not know any
local authority in Scotland—there may be some in England, but I do not know them even there—that rushes wildly and recklessly into extravagant expenditure on things of this description. I do not know of one that needs to be restrained, but I can think of a whole lot that need to be stimulated and prodded up, and I am amazed to learn, from the remarks passed by other hon. Members in the Debate, that certain local authorities in Scotland have made representations to the hon. and gallant Member that he should protect them from the possible future prodigality of their own expenditure. I cannot imagine any responsible local authority in Scotland coming to any Government Department and saying: "Here, if you give us power to do this, we will be recklessly extravagant in the exercise of our powers, and you have to protect us against ourselves." A case of that sort is not really a case for the Board of Health, but for the Board of Control, and I am surprised to find that such representations have been made.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman has referred to the amount of hospital treatment that exists. He ought to have referred to the amount of treatment that is carried on under the National Insurance Act also, and to the amount carried on in the Poor Law hospitals, and treatment with reference to tuberculosis. The total area that is left in which the local authorities have no power to act—the total amount of possible disease—is necessarily very limited, because the whole field is practically covered just now. I do not mean that it is adequately covered, but the powers are present for covering the whole health field just now, and the area left is necessarily very small and, I should think, would not involve more than a few hundred thousand pounds at the outside for the whole of the local authorities in Scotland.
I would have been very pleased if, in this particular Bill, as the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Dr. Shiels) suggested, there had been some Clause allocating a portion of the cost to the Board of Health and dividing it as between the central authority and the local authorities, hut even supposing the local authorities or the central authority bore the whole cost of any possible thing that might, ultimately come out of this Bill,
taking it at its widest, it would be a relatively small sum, and I would remind my hon. and gallant Friend, who was perhaps wisely not present in the House when we were discussing the Scottish Church Bill an hour or so ago, that we there granted an indefinite sum to practically an uncontrolled outside voluntary organisation to look after the spiritual needs of Scotland. In the most lordly fashion, the Episcopalians voted that money away, and now here we are quibbling about what I would be surprised to find would be more than an expenditure of £100,000 over all the local authorities in Scotland, for attention to the physical needs of the sick people of Scotland.
I would ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman, thinking of the very great distinction that he has earned in the medical service, that he should consider whether upstairs he should not insert a. Clause—or a few words would do; it does not need a Clause—to give him the necessary extended power, and withdraw this Bill just now for the very short time that it would take him to adjust the Title, so that the proposed Amendment would come within the scope of the Bill. I think the Scottish people and his professional brethren in Scotland would expect that from him, and urge upon him the desirability of taking that course.

Mr. STEPHEN: I wish to say a few words on this Bill, because the other evening the hon. and gallant Gentleman who represents the Board of Health seemed to be a little bit annoyed with some of us when we did not give him a Second Reading of the Bill, and also because, when our Bill was in Committee last year, he and I got rather at cross purposes during the discussion. There is one feature in connection with the present. Bill to which I would like to draw the attention of the House. In Clause 1 the Bill states that
The powers of a local authority under the Public Health (Scotland) Act. 1897, shall include and be deemed. as from the first day of March, 1924, to have included power to make such arrangements.
The point to which I wish to draw attention is that this is one other instance of retrospective legislation. All the lawyers in the House get into a state of excitement about retrospective legislation on every occasion when it is brought forward, and all the Constitu-
tionalists declare that they do not like it, and the hon. and gallant Member who is responsible for this Bill will, I am quite sure, agree that, as a general principle, retrospective legislation is something which should be avoided as far as possible. In this case he would, no doubt, plead that there are special circumstances in favour of retrospective legislation. I think that it was when he was in office that this treatment was found to be necessary in connection with diabetes, and he very gallantly and boldly decided to act outside of the law and to encourage local authorities to have no regard for the fact that they had not the powers in connection with the provision of the treatment, and now he has an opportunity to save himself or some future occupant of this office from being put in the same position.
I want to try to emphasise the fact again that this is simply permissive legislation, and that a local authority is not being compelled to give treatment, even in this case. It is only being permitted to give this treatment whenever it feels that a case has been made out to provide treatment for sufferers from diabetes. When our Bill was in Committee, some of us who belong to the working class felt so very strongly on the matter that we protested against the tactics of the hon. and gallon) Gentleman and those behind him in obstructing approved medical treatment being given in working-class homes, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman took me very severely to task for what I then said. He said that the way in which I referred to his own attitude in the matter was shameful. Well, I repeat to-day what I said in Committee. Unless the hon. and gallant Gentleman is going to take provision to extend this Bill, it means that working-class people are not going to get remedies that would otherwise be within their reach if this Measure were extended. I object most strongly to members of the working class being denied the very best medical treatment in connection with any disease, and I make bold to say that every Member of this House, to whatever party he belongs,

would deny indignantly the sugggestion that he or she was against giving such treatment to working-class people who were unable to pay for it themselves. Yet this Bill, I hold, in its limited form, is possibly going to act in that way in the future.

7.0 P.M.

I would like to appeal to the hon. and gallant Gentleman to take back this Measure. I think I could promise for my Scottish colleagues in our party that we would give the Bill a Second Reading without an instant's delay whenever he brought it forward again, if he would give the more extended powers that we suggest are necessary—permissive powers. I do not think there is very much in the argument that the local authorities have to be protected against themselves in this connection. I remember that in Committee it was suggested that there might be local influence brought to hear upon them, and that they might have to take measures to provide treatment, say, if a cure for cancer were discovered, and that it would involve them in a tremendous cost. I do not think that the hon. and gallant Gentleman would say that there is very much in that objection, and yet it might mean ever so much advantage to a section of the community if there were extended powers. It is true that we might have an Under-Secretary who would be daring enough to act as the hon. and gallant Gentleman 'himself acted in this connection, but, again, everyone is not just so daring as lie is, and we might have a very cautious individual occupying his seat, and poor people would suffer. I do not think that we are asking him for very much when we are promising that we will help him to push it through with the greatest speed if he will simply bring within reach of the working classes with the least possible delay any remedy that is approved by the medical profession in the future.

Question put, "That the Bill be now read a. Second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 272: Noes, 115.

Betheil, A.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Hall, Lieut, Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Blundell, F. N.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Pete, G. (Somerset, Frame)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Hammersley, S. S.
Philipson, Mabel


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Hanbury, C.
Pleiou, D. P.


Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Harland, A.
Price, Major C. W. M.


Brass, Captain W.
Harney, E. A.
Raine, W.


Briscoe, Richard George
Harrison, G. J. C.
Rawson, Alfred Cooper


Brittain, Sir Harry
Hartington, Marquess of
Rees, Sir Beddoe


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Reid, D. P. (County Down)


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Hawke, John Anthony
Rentoui, G. S.


Brown, Maj. D. C. (N'th'l'd.,Hexham)
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Brown, Brig.-Gen.H. C. (Berks,Newb'y)
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Rice, Sir Frederick


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Buckingham, Sir H.
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Ropner, Major L.


Bullock, Captain M.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.


Burman, J. B.
Henniker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A.
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Butt, Sir Alfred
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S J. G.
Rye, F. G.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Salmon, Major I.


Caine, Gordon Hall
Hohier, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Campbell, E. T.
Homan, C. W. J.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm., W.)
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Sanderson. Sir Frank


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hopkinson. A. (Lancaster, Mossiey)
Sandon, Lord


Chapman, Sir S.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Savery, S. S.


Christie. J. A.
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)


Clayton, G. C.
Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Shaw, Lt.-Col.A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew,W)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Shepperson, E. W.


Cellos, Major Wm. Phillips
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Cooper, A. Duff
Huntinglield, Lord
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Cope, Major William
Hurst, Gerald B.
Sinclair,Col.T.(Queen's Univ., Belfst.)


Couper, J. B.
Hutchison,G.A.Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)
Skelton, A. N.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Smith. R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine,C.)


Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Jacob, A. E.
Smithers, Waldron


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Jephcott, A. R.
Spender Clay, Colonel H.


Crookshank,Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Jones. Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Sprat, Sir Alexander


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F.(Will'sden, E.)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Kenyon, Barnet
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G.(Westm'eland)


Davidson. J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)
Lamb, J. Q.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Col. George R.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Tasker, Major R. Inigo


Dawson. Sir Philip
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Templeton, W. P.


Doyle, Sir N. Grattan
Loder, J. de V.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Drewe, C.
Lord, Walter Greases-
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Duckworth, John
Lougher, L.
Tinne, J. A.


Eden, Captain Anthony
Lowe, Sir Francis William
Turton, Edmund Russborough


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Waddington, R.


Edwards, John H. (Accrington)
Lumley, L. R.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Elliot, Captain Waiter E.
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Ellis, R. G.
MacIntyre, Ian
Warrender, Sir Victor


Elveden, Viscount
McLean, Major A.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


England, Colonel A.
Macmillan, Captain H.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Watts, Dr. T.


Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Macquisten, F. A.
Wells, S. R.


Everard, W. Lindsay
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Whaler, Major Granville C. H.


Fairfax. Captain J. G.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Williams, Corn. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Falls, Sir Charles F.
Margesson. Captain D.
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Fielders, E. B.
Merriman, F. B.
Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd)


Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Winby, Colonel L. P.


Ford, P. J.
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Forestier-Walker, L.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Forrest, W.
Moreing, Captain A. H.
Wise, Sir Fredric


Foster, Sir Harry S.
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Wood. B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Wood, Rt. Hon. E. (York, W.R., Ripon)


Ganzoni, Sir John
Murchison. C. K.
Wood, E.(Chest'r. Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Gates, Percy
Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph
Wood, Sir S. Hill-(High Peak)


Gee, Captain R.
Nelson, Sir Frank
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Neville, R. J.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Wragg, Herbert


Goff, Sir Park
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Nuttall, Ellis



Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Oakley, T.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Owen, Major G.
Commander B. Eyres Monsell and


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Pennefather, Sir John
Colonel Gibbs.




NOES


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hayday, Arthur
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hayes, John Henry
Smillie, Robert


Ammon, Charles George
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hudson, J. H. Huddersfield
Snell, Harry


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Barnes, A.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)


Barr, J.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Stamford, T. W.


Batey, Joseph
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Stephen, Campbell


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Broad, F. A.
Kelly, W. T.
Sutton, J. E.


Bromfield, William
Kennedy, T.
Taylor, R. A.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Kirkwood, D.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Buchanan, G.
Lansbury, George
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W)


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Lee, F.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Cape, Thomas
Lowth, T.
Thurtle, E.


Clowes, S.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)
Tinker, John Joseph


Cause, W. S.
Mackinder, W.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Compton, Joseph
Maclaren, Andrew
Varley, Frank B.


Connolly, M.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Viant, S. P.


Cove, W. G.
March, S.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Dalton, Hugh
Maxton, James
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Steven


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Warne, G. H.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Murnin, H.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Day, Colonel Harry
Oliver, George Harold
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Dennison, R.
Palin, John Henry
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Duncan, C.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Welsh, J. C.


Dunnico, H.
Ponsonby, Arthur
Westwood, J


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Potts, John S.
Whiteley, W.


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Riley, Ben
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Greenall, T.
Ritson, J.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Coins)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W.Bromwich)
Windsor, Walter


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)
Wright, W.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Saklatvala, Shapurji
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Groves, T.
Salter, Dr. Alfred



Grundy, T. W.
Scurr, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)
Sexton, James
Mr. John Robertson and Mr. Allen


Hardie, George D.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Parkinson.

Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURAL RATES (ADDITIONAL GRANT) CONTINUANCE BILL.

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Bill be now read the Third time."

Mr. ARTHUR GREENWOOD: Before this Bill is finally disposed of, I am sure the House would like to have some assurance that it is not the intention of the Government to bring forward this Act at regular intervals and put it virtually on the basis of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. While it is generally agreed on this side of the House that this Measure should be accepted on this occasion, we regard it practically as a stop-gap Measure, pending some further far-reaching Measure to deal with the whole question of local rates. The House is aware that the Act on which this Bill
is based, the Agricultural Rates Act., 1923, was opposed by Members on this side of the House on the grounds that while it might do something to remove an admitted grievance on the part of certain classes of ratepayers, it did nothing to deal with the question which was as important for other ratepayers as for the ratepayers in agricultural areas. We should be glad to be assured that the Government—who are optimistic enough to believe that they are going to be in office for a considerable period of time—intend, before the present Bill expires, to deal with the question of local rating on a much more comprehensive scale than has hitherto been attempted. I understand that the Government propose at an early date to seek a Second Reading of the Rating and Valuation Bill, and I should like to be assured, if I might, that that Bill is really a beginning of a reasoned policy for dealing with the whole problem of local rating. In view of the Rating and Valuation Bill which is in the Government programme, and regarding that as an earnest of the Government's intention to pursue the whole question of local
rating until it is put upon a satisfactory basis, we offer no opposition to the Third Reading of this Bill, but we should like to be assured that the Government regard this as purely a stop-gap Bill, and that it is their intention at an early date to deal with the whole question of local rating. We should like to be assured that the Rating and Valuation Bill, which is promised, is but the beginning of a policy which will secure ultimately the overhauling of the whole rating system with a view to putting it on an equitable basis. I should be glad if the Minister in charge of the Bill could give the House some assurance on those points.

Captain ELLIOT: I should be very glad to give such an assurance as is in my power to the hon. Gentleman and to the House, and to assure him that certainly the Government are pressing on with the consideration of its rating proposals. While, of course, the House will not expect me to give a date, especially in view of the Parliamentary mishap with which he is better acquainted possibly than those of us on this side of the House, he will, I am sure, accept my assurance that the Government does not regard the question of rating as solved by this Bill, that it does intend to continue to examine.?, carefully the question of rating, that it has a very large Bill now under consideration, and intends to bring the Bill forward at an early date.

Mr. A. GREENWOOD: The Bill to which the hon. and gallant. Member refers is the Rating and Valuation Bill, which is but a first stage. That Bill, as drafted, would really do nothing to deal with the problem which this Bill is designed temporarily to meet. What I am asking is. whether the Government propose to follow that Bill by legislation which will deal with the problem which has necessitated this particular Bill?

Captain ELLIOT: We have an old Scottish proverb which says, "One at a time is good fishing," and I am sure file hon. Member will not expect me here and now to sketch out the legislative programme of the Government further. These problems are engaging the close attention of the Government, and I have no doubt finality will not he reached by the Rating Bill they are now discussing, and that further reforms will have to take place.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

GUARDIANSHIP OF INFANTS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr, Godfrey Locker-Lampson): I beg to move,
That the Bill he now read a Second time.
Last Friday, I am sorry to say, I was engaged in a very controversial Bill, and I am only too glad to think that this Bill is, I believe, an absolutely uncontroversial Measure. It is the complement of the Separation and Maintenance Bill, to which this House so readily gave a Second Reading a few days ago. It is in the nature of a compromise, which is sometimes regarded, perhaps, as the chief recommendation of a Bill. The House will remember there have been several Bills on this subject. There was Lord Askwith's Bill, and there was Mrs. Wintringham's Bill, and both Governments of the day—I think a Conservative Government in the case of Lord Askwith's Bill, and the late Labour Government in the case of Mrs. Wingtringham's Bill—felt they could not adopt those Bills in their entirety, because they went further than general public opinion would accept at that moment. There are four reasons why those Governments could not accept those Bills. In the first place, they did not sufficiently emphasise the vital interests of the children. In the second place, both Bills tended to encourage too frequent appeals to the Court in merely trivial disputes. In the third place, orders against the husband were made enforceable while the wife was still resident with the husband; and, in the fourth place, there was a very controversial clause dealing with the attachment of wages.
Conferences were held between representatives of the late Government and the promoters of the Bill and others interested in the question. The hon. and learned Gentleman the late Solicitor-General was Chairman of the Committee, associated with my hon. Friend the late Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, and an agreement was reached between all parties. The House will remember the late Labour Government introduced a Bill last year, and that
it passed one House of Parliament, and would rapidly have passed into law, had it not been that the Dissolution of Parliament took place. The next stage in the history of this subject was that it was mentioned in the King's Speech the other day. This Bill is really the fulfilment of the promise made in the King's Speech, and is practically identical with the Bill introduced by the late Labour Government.
There are only two very unimportant additions to that Bill, one dealing with the date of the operation of the Bill, and also a very small addition dealing with machinery. This Bill, I believe, is a, considerable step in advance towards the equalisation of the law as between men and women. If I may, I will briefly summarise the chief Clauses of the Bill. Clause provides for absolute equality as between the father and mother in any case that may come before the Courts under the existing law touching the custody or upbringing of the infant, or the administration of property belonging to the infant. In all such cases—and this is a most important point—the Court is to regard the welfare of the infant as the paramount and first consideration, and it is not to take into consideration a claim for superiority of the mother over the father, or of the father over the mother. The Clause does not attempt to enlarge the scope of possible litigation, and matters for which a judicial decision may be sought remain as at the present moment. Clause 2 confers on the mother the same rights of applying to the court in matters affecting the infant as are possessed now by the father. Clause 3 enables a wife to obtain an order for custody and maintenance while she is still resident with the husband, but, as I mentioned just now, a very important point is that the order is not to be enforceable while she resides voluntarily with the father.
Clauses 4 and 5 give the mother the same power now possessed by the father to appoint by deed or will a guardian after death. Clause 7 provides that Courts of Summary Jurisdiction shall be added to the High Court and the County Court for dealing with certain types of application. I do not think I need deal with the remaining Clauses, which mainly relate to machinery. I quite realise that this Bill does not go as far as some people, especially outside this House,
might like it to go. I do not know whether that applies to many in this Chamber. On the other hand, this Bill, I believe, goes a good deal further than a good many people outside the House would wish to see. It does not, therefore, wholly satisfy either side, but I am not at all sure that is not really one of its chief recommendations. But, remembering the long controversy that has taken place over the earlier Bills, and the compromise effected by the hon. and learned Member and the hon. Member in the late Government, I do hope that all parties will do their best to secure the passage of this Measure, which was very nearly passed into law a few months ago.

Sir HENRY SLESSER: I have ventured to intervene in this Debate, because this Bill is partly—if I may say so without conceit—my own production. It is not the first time I have had the pleasure to follow my hon. Friend in agreeing with him on these various Bills for the emancipation of women, and I do not think I should be unfair if I emphasised the fact that this Guardianship of Infants Bill, like the Bill dealing with separation, is the product, in its entirety, of the Labour Government, and, as the hon. Member has said, it is the result of a compromise. I was appointed to the very delicate and difficult position of chairman of the committee, on which, I think, practically all the interests of the women's societies concerned in this matter, and the representatives of the Home Office and other Departments, were present. This Bill was unanimously agreed to by that committee as a practical solution of the immediate difficulties with regard to the guardianship of infants. In the Bill which was introduced by Mrs. Wintringham there were provisions which really were quite unenforceable. For instance, it was said in that Bill that the control of an infant would have to be a joint control of both parents, and it occurred to some of us at once that considerable. difficulties would arise if the father, for example, ordered Tommy to go to bed, and the mother was not present at the time, and pleaded a demurrer, that the order was several and not joint.
Other difficulties of that sort might arise. There was the suggestion, for example that either parent, on the slightest dispute about the behaviour of
the child from time to time, might immediately have recourse to the magistrate. Now magistrates are hard-worked people, and always ready to do everything that is necessary in the social service, but I believe that if some dispute as to what an infant had for dinner, or some minor dispute of that sort, were to arise in a family it would not be expedient that such a matter should be decided by the magistrate. When you come to really serious matters, they are provided for in this Bill. Trivial matters, which I do not think anyone would want to see interfered with by a Court, are not dealt with in the Bill, but anything approaching a serious domestic problem with regard to the child is so dealt with. It is provided in the first Clause that
Where in any proceeding before any Court (whether or not a Court within the meaning of the Guardianship of Infants Act, 1886) the custody or upbringing of an infant, or the administration of any property belonging to or held on trust for an. infant, or the application of the income thereof, is in question,"—
that covers every case which can in any way seriously affect the welfare of the child—
the Court, in deciding that question, shall regard the welfare of the infant as the first and paramount consideration, and shall not take into consideration whether from any other point of view the claim of the father, or any right at common law possessed by the father, in respect of such custody, upbringing, administration or application is superior to that of the mother, or the claim of the mother is superior to that of the father.
Therefore, I think in this Clause we have, found the right compromise in saying that in all matters of importance that shall come before the Court, the mother and father shall be on an equal footing, and we have excluded the possibility of frivolous applications to Courts of Law, when there is some little domestic tiff. I think, considering the difficulties of the problem, this Clause is a very useful and an admirable way out of what was a very considerable difficulty. In addition to that, we have made the very important provision, that the wife can obtain an order with regard to the custody and maintenance of an infant while she is still residing with the father. That is the same principle which was introduced in the Bill last week dealing with separation. Then the Bill provides that that order shall not
be operative until the mother ceases to reside with the father. There, again, you have it stated, for the first time in English law, that the mother may know what her rights will be with regard to her children before she actually takes the step of leaving her husband.
I do not deny that this is a very serious and important innovation. I am prepared to defend it. My right hon. Friend opposite is also prepared to defend it. But, I think that the House ought to realise that we are here specifically giving to married women a right which they have never possessed before—and a very valuable one! I do not want anyone to think that this Bill is a compromise which really deprives married women of any essential right. This is a new and novel thing. Married women here are regarded as having new rights which they have never possessed either by common law, or by the earlier Guardianship of Infants Act, or any other Statute before the present time. In Clause 5 we have the power of the father and mother to appoint testamentary guardians, and in future both parents are to be on equal terms. Then there is the provision in case of dispute, which says that the surviving parent or guardian may apply that the matter be taken to Court. The next provision which is, I think, important, is that we have provided for the first time that a Court of Summary Jurisdiction shall be able to exercise a jurisdiction in this class of case. We have excluded from its purview children of 16, or the administration or application of any property held in trust for an infant, and cases of maintenance of any infant exceeding 20s. a week; but it was impressed upon us—and my hon. Friend has taken the same view in this Bill—that in many cases it was desirable that the cheapest and most available jurisdiction, that is a Court of Summary Jurisdiction, should be available to deal with these cases.
Finally, there is another matter which deals with the consents required for the marriage of infants. These, so far, have been in a very chaotic condition, and are to be found in various Measures. So far as Clause 9 is concerned, it is really a codification very largely, and simplification, so that any person who proposes to marry an infant will be able, from the simple form in the Schedule of this Act, to look up their rights and see exactly
what consents are necessary for the marriage. Therefore, I wish to join in this matter with my hon. Friend in asking the House to allow this Bill to pass into law. It has already received three Readings in another place, and would, in the ordinary course of events, have been introduced by another Government not less anxious than our own, that the work should continue. I hope that this Bill will be regarded by everybody as a reasonable compromise between the old idea with regard to the father as being head of the household, and the new idea. This Bill, I say, is a reasonable compromise dealing with actual practical difficulties, and we ask that this House should give it a Second Reading.

Mr. GERALD HURST: The real justification for this Bill seems to me to lie in the Preamble, which deals not with first principles. It must depend on the issue whether or not it is really designed to work in those relatively few cases where the, difference-between husband and wife, both of whom have behaved themselves properly, is so acute that. agreement is impossible without going to Court. Although the Bill does not give a solution of these difficulties, in view of the very great experience and judgment which are possessed by the Judges who have to administer the Act, questions in regard to the career of the child, its education and residence, may well he left to their absolute discretion. I dare say it is quite wise that that discretion is not limited in express terms in the Bill. Though it may not be desirable to limit the discretion of the Judges, I should like to paint to two cases where possibly some indication may he given to the Judges by which their discretion should he guided. First of all, where you have joint guardians as a surviving parent and a testamentary guardian, it does seem to be a case where the wishes of the surviving parent should commonly prevail, and the wishes of the two guardians should not. be taken as of identical value. Where the question at issue involves expenditure, it seems to me. that the father should have a dominant voice in deciding what should be done with the child. It may not be necessary, perhaps, to indicate that in the Bill, because, no doubt, these facts will weigh with the Judges who have to administer the Bill. The real
object, however, of my rising this evening is to draw attention to a point which, in my experience, is much the most important in this question of guardianship of infants. It is not referred to at all in the Bill as drafted. It will be the experience, I think, of everybody who has practised in this type of case that in nine cases out of 10 an application made to the Court in a difference between husband and wife arises out of their difference of religion. It is a most difficult problem where you have two parents, both of whom are conducting themselves properly, while they differ in their religious views, whose children are very young and have not yet been able to form a judgment for themselves.
First of all, let me point out that at the present that system is absolutely bad, and that the new system does not provide a remedy for the present abuse. I say the present system is absolutely bad, because the father's rule at the present time is absolutely paramount. Even if the spouses have entered into a contract, before marriage that the children should be brought up in one particular faith, that contract is not a contract, enforceable in a Court of Law, for the father's wishes arc paramount, and the contract can be broken. Apart from that, the present law is that if the father and mother have accepted the same religious faith on marriage, and the father subsequently is converted to another faith, his view carries the children with it. This is so even if the common idea of both parents at the time of marriage was that the children should be brought up in the belief that the parents both had. What interested me first in this problem was a case in the Courts which seemed to me to involve tremendous injustice on the wife. Both husband and wife in this particular case were Anglicans at the time of marriage. Some years afterwards, after three or four children had been born, and were under the age, I should think, of nine, the husband became a Roman Catholic and all the children were accordingly brought up in the Roman Catholic faith. That seemed to me to be a hardship on the wife, because there was undoubtedly implied an understanding at the time of the marriage that the children should he brought up in the Anglican faith in which both father and mother then
believed. While allowing, therefore, that the present system is bad we have to ask whether the new system is going to provide a solution. In my contention it does not do so at all. The Judge has to decide which is for the greater welfare of the child, whether it should be brought up in the faith of the father or of the mother.
How can any judge in the world decide that question when the children are very young and not able to form an opinion for themselves. The father professes one faith and the mother professes another. It is an insoluble problem. I cannot see how any Judge can decide that if absolutely equal weight is to be given to the desire of the mother and of the father. That is the reason why I always press in this question two points which, I think, if they are acceded to, and put into the Bill, do offer a partial solution of this question. I ask the Minister to consider the desirability of adding to this Bill two new points. First of all, that where the spouses at the time of marriage entered into a contract that the child should be brought up in a particular belief, that contract should he upheld unless its performance is waived. The second point is this: that where the husband and wife believe in the same religion at the time of marriage there should be an implied contract that the children should be brought up in that faith unless both parties are willing that the implied contract should be departed from.
Two Clauses of the sort I suggest do not provide a complete solution to this problem. but they go a long way towards provider, a solution for what is the main cause of these applications being made TO the Courts. The suggestions which I am making to my hon. Friend are quite reasonable proposals. I was a member of the Joint Committee of Lords and Commons who sat on this question in July, 1923. We had before us Mi. Cecil Chapman, the well-known Metropolitan magistrate, who gave evidence. I asked him his views concerning these two proposals. I put these questions to him, and he thought that what I have suggested would provide a solution of the question. In his evidence he gave further illustration of the great difficulty of adjudicating upon these differences as between husband and wife without some rule of this character. Let me quote
some of his evidence. Let me, he said, to illustrate the necessity of protecting the wife against injustice in this matter of religion, give an example within my experience:
A lady of the Anglican faith was married to a husband of the same faith, and reasonably looked forward to her children, if she had any, being brought up in her own faith. Before the first child was born her husband became a Roman Catholic and immediately after the child's birth, without consulting or informing the wife, he had the child baptised in the Roman Catholic Church. The lady had several children, and on the birth of each the husband adopted the same course, to the great sorrow of his wife. The result has been tragic in the separation from all her children of an admirable mother, who had every right to have her wishes consulted and. if the Court saw fit, in the interest of the children, respected.
He gave another illustration, too. I am not putting this in any way from a de-nominational point of view, because the same principle applies to any religion. I do, however, ask the Minister to consider the absence in the present Bill of any solution of this problem. I say, and I say it with great confidence, that the Judge who has to decide upon this question of between husband and wife in regard to the faith in which their young children are to be brought up, will be absolutely at a loss, and I cannot see what objection there can be to importing into the Bill two Clauses of the character I have described. These, I believe, would be acceptable to members of all religious denominations, and certainly they were to Members of the House of Commons who were associated with me on the Joint Committee to which I have referred. Of course. I do not oppose the Bill in any way. In general principle it is a very sound Measure indeed: but the working of it may be extremely difficult. I do ask the Minister to realise that the working may be greatly facilitated by the adoption of the two points I have endeavoured to put before the House.

Miss WILKINSON: I desire to bring a note of dissent into the chorus of praise with which hon. Members on both sides of the House have received this Bill. It is true that large bodies of organised women are backing this Bill, but we do not say that it is perfect. This Bill is part of the constant agitation on the part of women of all shades of political thought to translate into law the equality that
has been granted to thorn in the political field. Although we have a preamble which says that it is sought to establish equality in law between the sexes, in actual fact this Bill does nothing of the kind. What it does is to establish equality where the people in question cannot agree; but where people are living apparently quite happily, whatever goes on behind the lace curtains, the fact still remains that the woman is not regarded as equal. I liked the assumption of the hon. and learned Member for Moss Side (Mr. Hurst), and of the late Solicitor-General on this side, that in such a home it must be taken for granted that the man is necessarily the head. Of course, we know that in the average home that is anything but the case, but still the fact does remain that as far as actual equality is concerned, unless there is some dispute, the whole assumption of the law is that the man, as always, remains completely the head of the household.
I do want to differ quite considerably front the right hon. Gentleman on my own Front Bench. It is always perfectly easy when we are dealing with questions in which women are concerned to adopt the reduetio ad absurdum argument and to draw pictures of what will happen if these dreadful women are allowed to have their own way. That has been done to such an extent in the suffrage Debates, that we get quite used to it, but I would draw the attention of both right hon. Gentlemen to the fact that in countries where equality of guardianship, complete equality before the law, does exist, these dreadful things do not, as a matter of fact, happen, and that family life remains completely happy as before. Having indicated these little dissensions, so to speak, may I say that on the whole we welcome this Bill, and we hope it will go through? We welcome it as an instalment of the time when there shall be many more women sitting on these benches, and when it will not be completely taken for granted that women have to be satisfied with any crumbs that fall from the table of the right hon. Gentlemen on both sides.
I want to stress the importance of Clause 3 of this Bill, because that does, for the first time, give a mother the opportunity to ask for maintenance as well as custody. There have been many real' tragedies where the mother could have been granted the custody of her child,
because of the behaviour of the father, but where she was unable to exercise that right, under the late law, because it was not possible for her to get maintenance. Improvement in the machinery for securing the enforcement of maintenance orders is very necessary. Hon. Members who have had anything to do with work in the Courts, or with social work in our great cities, know how many real tragedies there are in the attempts of women to enforce maintenance orders. I know of cases, in factories with which I was connected, of women waiting outside the factory, jeered at Fry the men, in order to get from their husbands the maintenance which had been granted under an order of the Court. I wish that Clause could have been strengthened, but I realise that if it were to be it would introduce a very difficult and contentious Clause into the Bill, which might endanger the whole Bill, and I would rather that anything than that should happen. I am glad the Government have given facilities to the Bill, and I take it as a sign of grace on the part of the Conservative party, a sign that they are prepared to honour, to this extent, the pledges they made in their Election speeches. I hope this will lead them to do still better things, and that we shall get that equality in the franchise which we ask for.

Sir HENRY CRAIK: The hon. Member who has just sat down said she was going to import a certain element of dissension into the discussion, and I am afraid I also must introduce something of that element from another point of view. This Bill was proposed in a conciliatory and moderate speech by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for the Home Office, and it was supported not only with moderation, but with something Tiat might call enthusiastic adulation, by the late Solicitor-General. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Moss Side (Mr. Hurst) also said he would support the Bill, though he pointed out certain very grave dangers which arise from the Bill as it stands, and pointed them out with great effect. Speaking as one who looks back a great many years, what strikes me when I think of this legislation dealing with the marriage state is," What can be the experience of people who suppose that married life is to he carried on by constant dispute, by the careful weighing of the comparative
power of the two partners, by getting one's powers tabulated and catalogued and regulated by the Court?" Do they not think that, once such interference is introduced into married life, once there exists between man and wife such a difference of opinion on these matters, it would be far better for both of them to break that bond which is either the best thing in the world, and the most sacred, or else the curse of life?
I was also very much struck by references from hon. Members which seemed to indicate that the inferiority of woman is taken as a commonplace. Do hon. Members really think that the mother is generally left aside. if there is a question of a choice of school, even of religion? Do not hon. Members think that as a rule the first question that occurs to each of them is to ask the other, "What do you think about it? I want to know first what you think before I give my view."

Miss WILKINSON: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that I was merely discussing legal equality? I was not discussing any state of affection between the parties.

Sir H. CRAIK: T quite understand. But just. think what Clause 3 of the Bill implies. A woman still residing with her husband, pretending to keep up the tragic farce of living together, is to consult lawyers to find out what the probabilities of the law are, and all the time that she is living with, and pretending to be the partner of her husband, she is concocting a legal case which is to oust him from his share in control. Do hon. Members think that the marriage of sons and daughters is to be a matter of discussion, and of legal settlement, in which one parent or the other is to be superior, and to set aside the views of the other-? Sometimes a case may arise. I wonder if hon. Members remember the story, in one of Jane Austen's novels, of Elizabeth Bennet, who received a proposal from that egregious ass Mr. Collins. She was told by her mother that if she did not at once accept him, and marry him, she would never see her mother's face again. Then her mother took her to Mr. Bennet, and Mr. Bennet's verdict was:" Elizabeth, you are in a most unpleasant position. If you do not marry Mr. Collins, your mother will never see you again; and I
am sorry to tell you that if you do marry Mr. Collins, you must say ' Good-bye ' to me." These situations do arise, and they are settled much better by affection, by love, by mutual reverence and perhaps by humour. Do not introduce into them your abominable legal phraseology, with resort to the Court, and cataloguing of the rights of one side or the other. This Bill may go forward— I am not going to oppose it—but I feel bound to say I am perfectly certain I am stating the opinion of a great many people outside this House when I say that I feel no such complete sympathy with or interest in it as has been expressed from all sides.

Mr. R. DAVIES: The speeches we have heard this evening from the hon. lady on my left and from the two hon. Gentlemen on the other side indicate clearly the problems the Home Office has had to contend with in another sphere. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman who spoke last that this Bill does not in the least interfere with the question of marriage.

Sir H. CRAIK: I think that, if you will look at Clause 9, you will find it does.

Mr. DAVIES: If the right hon. Gentleman representing the Scottish Universities will allow me, I will explain myself. The right hon. Gentleman seems to assume that this Bill will interfere with normal married life. It does nothing of the kind. It will deal only with those cases in which husband and wife completely fail to agree. That is the object of the Bill. As one who has had something to do with this Bill when the Labour Government existed, I will say another word or two. I am glad the Bill has again been brought before the House, because it marks one of the. greatest steps forward in favour of the mother. She is under a disadvantage now, and this Bill proposes to remove serious disabilities under which she is suffering. In my view it is only the beginning of things. I think the House ought to understand very clearly that the Bill, as I will repeat for the information of my right hon. Friend, will not disturb in the least the existence of affection between the normal couple; it will deal only with problems arising when that affection has departed. It seeks to deal, too, with what I should imagine, is probably the greatest human
tragedy of all. It aims at promoting the. welfare of the children. When the husband and wife do quarrel to the extent that they must part, the children, as a rule, are the greatest sufferers. One of the main objects of this Bill is to deal with the welfare of the child in such cases; and I think it will do a great deal towards solving one of our most difficult problems. I am very interested in this type of child, because up to now the neglected child, the child who is bereft of home, and of parents living together, is very often the child who is led into criminal ways I would like to see us all adopting the attitude which is incorporated in this Bill in order that children shall not be neglected in such a way that they will haunt the streets of our great cities and commit offences against the law. It has been rightly said that the matrimonial difficulties arise because of mixed marriages connected with religion. But the hon. Member for Moss Side (Mr. Hurst), who made that statement, seemed to be very doubtful whether this Measure would meet the situation. It has been assumed in some quarters that in a case where the husband is a Catholic and the wife a Protestant, when they quarrel and part, that the boys should go with the father and the girls with the mother. That is an impossible situation, and I would suggest we must somehow get over such a difficulty. I do not agree that such a situation is absolutely impossible of solution. I do not think there is any human difficulty impossible of solution; and this Bill ought to have a chance to see what it. can do to remedy the grievances under which these people are suffering at the present time.
8.0 P.M.
There are several points not included in the Measure which I think were included in the Bill introduced by Mrs. Wintringham. There is the question of the amount settled by the Court that the husband should pay to the wife. The employer would be entitled under the original Bill to deduct the amount out of the man's wages at the pay office. I resisted that view because, the proposal may be all right to a man and woman living in the higher social scale, in a very large house, probably a residence so big that they would not see each other for three or six months. But in the case of
a man and his wife residing in a house and living in two rooms up and two down, we ought not to lay it down in that case that the deduction shall be made from the man's wages by the employer. That is impossible. I trust the women's organisations will never go back, even for the purpose of: helping the wife and suffering children, to the point of introducing the abominations of the Truck Acts. I cannot conceive how a husband and wife can possibly live together in such circumstances, and I am positive that the. situation would he even worse if the man found that the employer was empowered to deduct a certain amount from his. wages and to hand it over to his wife.
There are two or three other provisions left out of the Bill. There is, however, one point which I am pleased is included. It is the case of the woman who is coin-pellet] to leave home before taking proceedings. She is undoubtedly under a disadvantage because she must. leave; her husband before she gets an Order from the Court against him. Under this Bill she would be entitled to secure an Order while she is living with him; but the Order of the Court would not be operative until she leaves her husband. That is a safeguard which we are bound to make. f we allowed the wife to remain with I he husband, and the Order of the Court against him was made operative whilst. she lived with him, one can imagine the consequences. If the husband declined to pay the amount ordered by the Court, the wife could sue him and probably send him to gaol because he had not complied with the Order. That point has happily been left out of this Bill. No Substantial alteration has been made from the Bill which the Labour Government brought in on the last occasion except the date. That was imperative.
There is something in what was said by the hon. Member for Moss Side. I did not quite catch what he meant when he said that there ought to be an indication-given to the Judge when this Bill becomes law, so that he may be able to decide who shall have the dominant voice with regard to the children. In fact, what is fundamental to this Bill is that neither the husband nor the wife shall have a. dominant voice at all: they are equal. That is the definite principle underlying the whole of the Bill; and I trust that
when this Measure comes to be worked out in the Courts of the land it will lie found to operate so smoothly and that it will mark the beginning of a new era. I am not really so much concerned about the man and his wife who are foolish enough to quarrel. But I am very much concerned indeed about the provisions in this Bill that will rescue the children from the consequences of such a quarrel.
I hope the House will have no hesitation whatever in passing this Measure, and in giving it a Second Reading tonight. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir H. Craik), who rather hinted that this Rill was an interference between husband and wife, that the chief aim and object of this Measure is to try and compose those differences. The Courts are, T understand, in part already carrying out the object of this Bill.
This is one of a series of Measures which the women's organisations are desirous of carrying through the House. There is no doubt in my mind that the granting of the franchise to women is responsible for many Measures which are brought before us affecting women and children. I hope the women will continue to take an interest in problems of this kind. There is still a great deal to he done in the direction of bringing influence to hear on this House to induce us to bring Measures of this kind to fruition. For these reasons I hope this Measure will be given a Second Reading to-night.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: As far as this Bill is concerned, I think it meets with the general approval of those with whom I am in the habit of acting. It. is not quite on all fours with Mrs. Wintringham's Bill, and I am not sure that some of the omitted provisions should not be inserted. I hope the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department will not take too rigid a line in Committee, but be prepared to consider some of these omissions from the Bill when we reach the Committee stage. I do not accept the doctrine put forward by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir H. Craik), although I fully appreciate his sincerity. I lave no doubt that he resents strongly the invasion of the rights of the home whenever we embark upon
any new legislation. There are so many of these old and traditional rights which the right hon. Gentleman has defended in the past that I am not surprised to find him defending them to-day. The main object of this Bill is expressed in Clause 1 in the words
shall regard the welfare of the infant as the first and paramount consideration.
However we may pay respect to the principle of the equality of the sexes, and I have done all I could to support every Measure for the equality of the sexes both in regard to the franchise and otherwise, I think it is necessary at this stage that we should have prime regard to the welfare of the infant, and that ought to affect us in any decision we arrive at. I give this Bill general support, and my hon. Friends will do their best to secure its passage into law at the earliest possible moment.

Mr. SPENCER: I nave some misgivings with regard to the actual working of this Bill when it comes into law. My hon. Friends on the Front Bench seem to be very pleased indeed because Clause 3 gives the woman the right to go to Court for the custody of the child and for maintenance while she is still living with her husband. There may be a measure of reasonableness with regard to that, providing that on the receipt of the order from the magistrate for the right of custody and maintenance, the wife was going to leave the husband. I can conceive the granting of an order to a woman under which the right of maintenance might become a means not only of irritation, but a means of driving the two parties further apart if the woman held what is tantamount to a big stick and was able to say, "Unless you do this or that I shall get an order, and take charge of the children." There is a danger there which, instead of lending to peace and quietness and the general welfare of the children, it is just possible that the granting of this privilege when she is not going to leave the husband may lead to difficulties which would not otherwise arise.
This Bill gives the father the right on death or before to appoint a guardian. I am old-fashioned enough to believe that the most salutary influence in domestic life in regard to children is the father, and when the father's influence fails in a home in wise counsel and guardianship and proper oversight, then
I would not give a very great deal for the home. I am not belittling the influence of the mother. From some points of view her influence is greater than the father, but I prefer the father from the point of view of the stronger hand of guardianship. Supposing a mother does leave her husband and goes to live with her sister, she is then to have equal rights with the father. Supposing the father marries again, and the sister thinks the children are not being treated properly, that is not going to add to peace or the comfort of the children. I agree with the objects of the Bill, but I can also see that there are a great many dangers.

Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

IMPERIAL INSTITUTE BILL.

Read a Second time.

It being a Quarter-past Eight of the Clock, further Proceeding was postponed, without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 4.

ROYAL COMMISSION ON FOOD PRICES.

Mr. LANSBURY: I beg to move,
 That the composition and the proceedings of the Royal Commission on Food Prices are not such as to inspire public confidence, and this House is of opinion that action, legislative or otherwise, based upon the large mass of evidence already available and designed for the protection of the public against profiteering in the sale of food, Mould he undertaken without delay.
In moving the Resolution I should like to remind the House that this subject of food prices and the cost of living is probably one of the most important that this House can discuss, because, in dealing with it, we are dealing with the whole question of the standard of life of the mass of the people, and at the same time we are dealing incidentally with another rather important question, the question of cheapening production. I believe that most Members of this House, and most people outside, think that the value of a man's wages depends altogether upon what the man's wife can buy with those
wages, and during the War and since the War the value of wages, as far as the ordinary workers are concerned, has to a very large extent steadily depreciated. I am quite aware that the cost of living is not at the point at which it was during the actual days of the War, but I think everyone will agree that it is very considerably higher than it ought to be. Those who cry out loudest for cheaper production must, I think, face the fact that there cannot be, so far as wages are concerned, any sort of cheaper production, because you have wages down at the present moment almost below the subsistence level, owing to the prices that people are obliged to pay for food.
I want also to repeat something that I said in the House a week or two ago. Everyone who comes here interferes with the rights of private property. The old idea that you can leave business alone, and let business do just as it pleases—that is to say, the old Manchester school idea of everyone clearing a space for himself, and making his way in the world—that doctrine has broken down in practice, and to-day nobody denies that Parliament must to some extent deal with the operations of companies, trusts and monoplies. I should like to point out that the private individual running a business is more and more being improved off the face of the earth. Mr. McCurdy's Committee on Profiteering reported that 80 per cent. of the businesses to-day were businesses run by joint stock companies or by trusts. There is no such thing now, in a practical sense, except in very small businesses, as the individual business man building up a business without the help of shareholders and the joint stock company laws. That has led very largely to what is called "big business." I should like further to point out, in passing, that the operation of the big concerns, especially in the trades of grocers, chemists and druggists, meat and wheat, has crushed out of business many small people without any compensation what-so ever. It is very often put up against people like myself, who are Socialists, that we. want to take away people's businesses, and give them no compensation. The great multiple shop trust crushes out the small people without giving them any compensation whatever. That is a sort of thing in business which is entirely new in. these days—that is to say, it has arisen
within the last 25 or 30 years. The difference between ourselves on this side and hon. Members opposite and hon. Members here above the Gangway—who are not here—is that they want the trust to be owned by private individuals, while we desire that the nation should own and control the trust. We quite agree that modern production and modern distribution must be done on a big scale, and we say that it will be much better done if it be done in the interests of the community, instead of in the interests of sleeping partners, who only draw dividends and profits.
I repeat that the object of all trusts is to eliminate the middlemen, to eliminate competition, and to get, as far as possible, the whole of the business under their control. The operation of these trusts and monopolies has brought about such a condition of affairs that at the last Election every Tory candidate put up the poster, "Vote for So-and-so and Cheap Food." [An HON. MEMBER: "No!"] The hon. Member objects, and I Win not say that he did it. I would only say that I travelled all over London and very considerable parts of the country, and everywhere I went I saw that poster. One statement that was made was that the Labour party had sent up the price of fool, and it was added, "Return Mr. Baldwin and Food will come down." This stunt was worked so thoroughly that the Rothermere Press started immediately the Government was formed, a great campaign to force the Ministry to do something. and day after day Lord Rothermere repeated, in a parrot-like fashion," Something must be done." At last the Prime Minister did something. He did what all Prime Ministers do when they get in a fix—he appointed a Royal Commission to bury the subject. I sat on a Poor Law Commission, and gave about three and a half years to its work. We produced reams of reports, and there they are, ornamenting the library shelves now, but nothing whatever is being done. I would point out that there was no need for another Commission, because the facts are well known. A Committee that sat under Lord Linlithgow put the position perfectly straight and plain, as the House will hear later on in the Debate. Mr. McCurdy's Committee also put the position quite clearly, if any Government had wanted to deal with this subject in
anything like an effective manner. But they did not want to do so, so they appointed a Royal Commission, and, as I say, Royal Commissions, up to the present, have always been quite effective in burying a question for a very long time. So far as these benches are concerned we do not intend to allow it to be buried, if our opposition to the funeral service can have any weight at all.
When they did appoint a Commission, whom did they appoint? First of all, as I understand, the Labour party were not asked to nominate anyone to serve on this Commission. There are two members of the Commission who are connected with the Labour movement, but they are not the official representatives, and they are only two out of all the rest. I should have thought that in appointing a Commission to investigate this subject some of the victims of high prices might have been allowed to serve on it. I do not think we want learned expert people to find out the truth about any question of this kind. The people who were appointed are headed by Sir Auckland Geddes, and who is Sir Auckland Geddes He is a gentleman who came into the limelight, it is said, during the War. He was Director of Recruiting for one year: he was Minister of National Service—and we all know what that was—for three years; and then he became President of the Local Government Board. In the same year he became Minister of Reconstruction. He made a pretty fine mess of that for he did nothing and did it thoroughly. In the same year he became President of the Board of Trade. Then apparently he rushed off to become the principal of the McGill University in Canada and a year later he became British Ambassador to the United States. I should think he is a jack of all trades and master of none. If any workman had flitted about from one job to another like this he would have got the sack over and over again. He has now been elected a director of the Rio Tinto Company—a good English name that is—a company for the purchase and development of the sulphur and copper mining property of Rio Tinto, Spain, in place of the Minister of Labour, who resigned on being appointed to the Cabinet. This gentleman, who has all these jobs, is now one of the directors of the Liverpool and London and Globe Insurance Company,
and this is the gentleman who is appointed to be chairman of the Commission to investigate the working of trusts and monopolies and so on. It is like appointing a wolf to find out why a lamb should complain about being eaten. The idea of appointing such a gentleman is, I think, simply playing the fool with the British public. The other gentlemen are professors or business men of one sort or another and there are only two who can by any stretch of imagination be considered to represent the working classes of the country.
Sir Auckland Geddes, in his examination of witnesses, takes up an altogether hostile attitude. I saw him at work the other day, and I am certain, had he been cross-examining me, I should have been turned out of the room for alleged insults to him because I could not have tolerated a man speaking to me when I was volunteering to give evidence in the fashion in which he spoke to the witnesses on the day I was there. He acted as an advocate all the way through. Instead of wanting to get at the truth all he wanted to do was to trip up the witnesses, and he made insulting remarks that they should have supplied him with information as to where the many goes, and as to where money could be saved whereas he is appointed with his commission to do that very job. Any of the witnesses could only give him evidence as to how the high prices affected them themselves, and those they represent. I think he is quite un-fitted to be Chairman of the Commission. He is one of three brothers, all of whom flashed across our minds and our lives during and since the War, Sir Eric Geddes is the outgoing president of the Federation of British Industries, a central organisation of capitalist producers as distinct from capitalist middle-men. This is important to remember. Irvine C. Geddes, another brother, is director of Anderson, Green and Company, managers of the Orient Steam Navigation Steam Company, Limited, and among the chief directors of that company is Lord Inchcape. Lord Inchcape is the chairman of the Central Queensland Meat Export Company, the Ceylon Wharfage Company, Limited, the Doodputlee Tea Company, Limited, the Salonah Tea Company, Limited, the Australasian United Steam Navigation Company, Limited,
Eastern and Australian Steamship Company, Limited, the British India Steam Navigation Company, Limited, the P. & O. Steam Navigation Company, the P. & O. Banking Corporation, Limited, and he is also a director the National Provincial Bank, Limited, I think, and Lloyds and National Provincial Foreign Bank, Limited. The only thing now to do with him is to make him business dictator of Britain. We are often told by hon. Members opposite that we want to get all the business under one head and not leave anything to private people to have any initiative about. This gentleman is a kind of super-super-man, specially created in order to run all these companies. Anyhow there he is and here is another interesting little fact, to show how all these companies and friends get interwoven one with another. The Hon. Alexander Shaw is now a director of seven of Lord Inchcape's companies, and he got into this position either at the time or directly after Lord Shaw had presided over the Dockers' Inquiry.
Then there is a gentleman called Sir Harry Peat. I suppose he is the member of the Commission who is there to look after accounts. He happens to be one of the leading persons in the firm of W. B. Peat and Company, who run the British Trade Corporation, founded to finance export trade, and the National Provincial Bank, Limited, and his father, who is the senior partner of the firm, is one of the founders of the Federation of British Industries, and this is the man who is going to inquire as to where the money goes that people pay in high prices. I am quite willing to admit that occasionally Sir Auckland Geddes, like Satan reproving sin, gently reproves some of those who come before him on the opposite side to that of our friends. There is a gentleman named Lord Vestey, and there is Sir Gordon Campbell, whose firm is controlled by Lord Vestey's firm. They came before the Commission and upset Sir Auckland Geddes. I am getting mixed up with their names. They are three good Scotsmen who know how to take care of themselves. One got £50,000 out of the British public and got away with it very nicely indeed. Lord Vestey and Sir Gordon Campbell had their knuckles gently wrapped, but that was only for
public consumption. When they came back to give evidence that they would not give on the first occasion the door was shut. We do not know what they said. All we know is that it was private. This is how they are going to let the public know how and why they are being fleeced by high prices. You shut the door just when very interesting evidence is going to be given and we are asked to believe that we ought to have trust in them.
Sir William Vestey is one of those patriots who really believes that it is better to make money out of your country's necessities than to serve your country. If anyone on these benches or any workman who absconded from the country or attempted to do what these gentlemen did during the War, I do not know what language would not have been used about them by hon. Members opposite. I am quoting from the evidence given before the Royal Commission on Income Tax in 1919. We ought to know who this gentleman is, and what he says about himself, who helps to control the meat supply of this country. Here is what he says he and his friends were:
We are proprietors and managers of freezing works, cold stores or cattle ranches in Great Britain,"—
I do not know where the cattle ranches are in Groat Britain—
Russia, China, Australia, New Zealand, the United States, Venezuela, Brazil, Paraguay, Argentine, South Africa, Madagascar, France, Spain, Portugal"—
I was going to say, "and Mars," hut he only says, "and other countries."
The capital employed in the business and in the affiliated concerns under the same management. is in excess of £20,000,000. The business, therefore, ranks among the largest British industrial concerns and is larger than that of all the other British frozen and cold storage companies put together:.
This is what happened to this gentleman. During the War the Government put up the Income Tax. They took men's bodies; they did not pay them anything, but they said to the people who were making money, "You must pay a little extra in money if these men are going out to fight to save your bodies and your profits." What did this gentleman do? He just cleared out of England. He is quite honest and quite frank about it.
This is what he says. Here are questions put to him:
Prior to 1915 your head offices were in this country and the control was exercised from here?—Yes.
In consequence of taxation you have moved the control to South America?—Yes, to Buenos Aires.
So this is not a case of someone coming and telling us that they might have to take their business away, or would have to do so; you have actually done it?—Yes, we have actually done it.
Are you in Chicago?—We are domiciled in Buenos Aires.
You have not removed to the United States?—No.
So you have escaped the heavy American sur-tax?—There is no tax in Buenos Aires at all."
This is one of the gentlemen who control a very large part of the meat supply of this country.
Where are you domiciled at present—in this country?—No, Buenos Aires. I am technically abroad at present, but I came over specially to appear before this Commission. … I am abroad: I pay nothing.
He could not pay anything less. A Mr. MeLintock then asked:
How much do you think you ought to pay in taxation in this country?
This man who left the country rather than pay ordinary Income Tax replied:
I will give you £100,000 a year, beginning to-morrow. to be allowed to come and work in this country.
That is to say, he was willing to pay up to £100,000 a year Income Tax, but no more. That was a bargain which he offered. That was the offer that he said he made before he left the country. We can imagine what he must have been making, the sort of profits he must have been piling up, to be able to offer 2100,000 a year as a kind of bribe to be. allowed to remain here. He paid no tax in Buenos Aires. This man has now come back to England. When he gave evidence I think he was a knight. I should not call him very much of a knight. He was a knight of the purse, or a knight of brass. I do not think I should call him a knight of chivalry, to run away from the country in the middle of the War to escape taxation. [An HON. MEMBER: "A nightmare!"] Now he is back in England, and he is a Lord. It will be interesting if the right hon. Gentleman who is going to reply will inform the House what particular service this
gentleman rendered to the country, and also whether he contributed anything to party funds in order to get his peerage. It will be a scandal if this thing is not gone into right to the bottom. [HON. MEMBERS: "What has this to do with the question?"] It has to do with the question; these are the people who are plundering the public, and we see that this man is now a Peer of the British realm. Therefore, it is in order.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Hope): It would not be in order in Debate to answer the hon. Member on the point.

Mr. LANSBURY: I hope that during the Debate someone may be able to get it in sideways. It would be so very interesting to know how this gentleman did it. As far as I can see, what he did was to get a very large amount of money out of the country, owing to the country's necessities. This gentleman and two of his relatives control the Union Cold Storage Company, which is a wonderful company. They also own 2,400 retail shops. They are interested in Eastmans, Limited, the Argenta Meat Company, the Western United Investment Trust, Limited, and Weddell & Company, and so on. The Vestey's, like Sir Auckland Geddes and others, are in everything. The facts I have quoted show the ramifications of these trusts which control prices and the gentlemen who control the trusts.

Mr. MacINTYRE: Is the gentleman whom the hon. Member is describing a member of the Commission, or merely a witness?

Mr. LANSBURY: I am dealing now with facts. You do not need a Commission. All I am saying is well known to the public. The Government have it all on record in the Board of Trade documents that are published week after week. Everything I am saying the Government can dig up. I am sure they know more about it than I do. I do not wonder that Sir Auckland Geddes went into Committee, as it were, to take evidence in private from this gentleman. It, would have been too dreadful to have had it out in public.
Sir Auckland Geddes stated publicly. and this shows his unfitness for the position as Chairman of the Commission, that he, really did not know how costs went up. I propose to tell the House where
some of the costs go to. There is a monopoly concern called the Home and Colonial Stores. They pay 25 per cent. dividend. I do not know where that 25 per cent, dividend comes from if it does not come out of the pockets of the poor people who spend their pennies in the shops. It cannot come from anywhere else.
Then there is the Maypole Dairy Company. For two years this company paid 100 per cent, dividend. Hon. Members on the other side talk about fair-wages. I want to know what they consider is a fair dividend. One hundred per cent. is worse than Shylock. Not, only that, but every now and then the Maypole Company gave away up to 36,000,000 of 2s. shares to their shareholders, so that when dividend was paid. afterwards on these bonus shares it might appear less to the public, although it might very well be higher than it was before when the actual figure appeared to be high.
Then there is Messrs. Lyons Company, the great restaurant firm. We all appreciate the manner in which they have improved catering in London. They have managed very decently to serve God, the public, and themselves very well. In 1924 they paid 25 per cent. dividend. In 1918–1935 per cent., and in 1920–21 421 per cent. That is a good gilt-edged sort of security out of the food of the ordinary people. The next time we are discussing wages and what the worker ought to exist on just think of that. You have. merely got to sit clown and gather it in without doing anything whatsoever. You are not going to tell me that the shareholders do the cooking or do the wait up at the shops. I do not want to be waited on by any of the shareholders, but in addition to that in 1909–10 they gave away 10 per cent. in deferred ordinary shares to the shareholders. In 1921 they gave 100 per cent. to the A ordinary shareholders. That means to say that everybody who had had another £1 given to him, and if their dividend had gone down next year, they would have said, "Look! We are not doing so well as we have been doing." They would have been doing equally well if the dividend had been half.
When we come to flour, the facts are well known, and we do not want a Commission to establish them. Take the firm of Spillers Milling and Associated
Industries, Limited. It is described as a holding company, controlling more than a dozen subsidiary companies concerned in milling. In order to under-stand the evidence of Lord Vestey, and the evidence given on behalf of these gentlemen, the House should understand that subsidiary companies are only registered as private companies, and are not compelled to publish a balance sheet showing the profit and loss, and the dividends which they have paid, and all these concerns have very large numbers of subsidiary companies, and we cannot get any account from them. This company controls Spillers Victoria Foods, Spillers Steamship Company, the Uveco Cereals, the British Oak Insurance Company, Spillers and Bakers Limited, Turog Brown Flour Company, Spillers Grain Company, Vernon and Sons, Watson, Todd and Company, Frost and Sons, Cardiff, and Channel Mills, Limited, Spillers Nephews, Limited, John Jackson and Son, Limited, Rishworth, Ingleby and Lofthouse, Limited. No information is available about the profits and dividends of these subsidiary companies, but the dividends of the holding company were, in 1920 15 per cent., in 1921 15 percent., in 1922 15 per cent. In 1922–23, poor people, they got right down to 12½, per cent., but I think that that was due to the fact that in 1919 they gave away 100 per cent. share bonus. They get away with it one way or another.
Then we have the Union Cold Storage Company which started in 1893 with a capital of £50,000. They only had one cold storage establishment then. We were always told that our business cannot hold up its head, that these wretched workmen take every bit of profit and dividend away, and that the poor people who run the businesses cannot live. This company which had £50,000 at the start has now got a paid-up capital of £8,780,000. I suppose that they capitalised their losses. These people control Eastmans. They are proprietors of Fletchers, the Argenta 'Meat Company, the British Beef Company, the North Australian Meat Company, Lonsdale and Thompson, John Layton and Company, Donald Cook and Sons, the British Argentine Meat Company incorporating Nelson and Sons and the River Plate Fresh Meat Company. in addition, the company is allied to
Nelson Brothers, Weddel and Company and the Colonial Consignment and Distributing Company, and the shares pay 10 per cent.
Then we come to tea. We have the, Deamcoolie Tea Company which declared a dividend of 60 per cent. in 1924, with 20 per cent. of its capital to reserve. That means that the percentage of profit for that year was 75 per cent. Then there is the Upper Assam Tea Company, Limited. The capital was increased in 1923 by the. distribution of two new shares for every share held. That is what is called watering the capital. The dividend in 1924 was 25 per cent, on the new capital, equivalent to 75 per cent. on the old capital. Next there is the Tea Estates Company. The profit in 1924 after paying the preference dividend was equivalent. to 172.8 per cent. Never talk about the greedy workman any more. Next we come to banks. I always look on bankers as people who get money out of you for nothing. They write on a bit of paper—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I am afraid that the hon. Member is not in order in dealing with banks.

Mr. LANSBURY: Everything which I have said up to now has had to do with food. I am trying to point out that all the information necessary to show the Government that there is profiteering in food is available, and everything which I have quoted up to the present is from official documents. Now I am going to quote the profits made by banks who handle the money which is received by the merchants through whom they extract considerable sums of money from the British public, because I may point out that none of what is called money is of any value unless it has behind it human labour or raw material in one form or a nother.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member has been in order up to now, because he has brought forward prima facie evidence of profiteering in food, but when it comes to banks I do not see the relevance of his remarks.

Mr. LANSBURY: The connection is this. If I were in business, running a food establishment, and wanted bills discounted, I should have to get this done at the bank, or if I wanted an overdraft I should have to get it done by the bank, and the bank would charge me either a
fair or an usurious rate of interest. It is not for me to show which of these it is, but I want to point out that the money which the hank make out of business must come out of business. It does not come from Heaven or from the other place.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: In order to be in order the hon. Member must show that the profits of the bank have something to do with the price of food.

Mr. LANSBURY: I must leave it to you and the House to judge whether it is profiteering after you have heard the figures. I do not accuse the banks of profiteering, but the interest must be paid by the consumer in one way or another.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member's argument would be perfectly, apposite on a general economic discussion, but by his Motion he is limited to food profiteering. Banks are not food merchants. [Laughter]

Mr. LANSBURY: The right hon. Gentleman opposite ought not to laugh, because he knows the truth of what I am saying.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): My overdraft keeper charges me the same rate as he charges Poplar.

Mr. LANSBURY: I am not so sure of that. We get it a little bit cheaper than you, because we get it from the Treasury. The bankers are very large financiers. They invest their customers' money in loans, and if they are making a very high profit part of it must be coming from foodstuffs and other interests of the people.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That argument really goes beyond the scope of the Motion.

Mr. LANSBURY: I bow to your ruling, of course. I shall have another opportunity of dealing with that matter. But you have rather spoiled a good round-off to my case. I shall have to get that argument out some other time. I do not want to resume my seat without saying two or three things, apart from profiteering and so on. I want right hon. and bon. Gentlemen opposite to understand that I know it is part of business to make as much money as possible, to create a monopoly or trust in order to get more money. I
do not blame anyone individually about this. It is business. But I think it is a business that at this time of day is played out. The world of mankind has come to the point where the old methods no longer avail. It is no use blinking the fact that we have 1,500,000 people out of work in this country, and that those who are at work live on the border line of subsistence. All of us are sent here to try to find a remedy. We on this side believe Socialism is a remedy; you think Socialism is not. It is no use imagining that you can get over the difficulties in which we find ourselves merely by coming forward with big schemes affecting the Empire far away.
I want to bring the House back to this: that. Up to the present the country has allowed, the great mass of the people have agreed, that the competitive system in industry is the right one. The capitalists of the world eliminate competition as much as possible. No great financier on the opposite side of the House, no big business men on that or on this side will deny the fact that the object of a business man is to eliminate competition. Any of us who are in business knows that that is the one thing we try to do. The fundamental of commercialism, free competition, has broken down. It is time this House considered how to apply the principles of co-operation as against corn. petition. The house had abundant opportunities during the War of applying the principle of co-operation. Every time they did it they got better service. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]: There is no man on the other side who knew anything about supplies during the War who will say that we could have carried On the War if we had left private competition deal with these things. The country had to adopt modified Socialism in order to carry on the War.
I put it to hon. Members that as in war time they controlled foodstuffs, and the distribution of foodstuffs, in order that the people might be fed to carry on the War, so to-clay in peace time those things ought to be controlled in order to get people out of the slough of destitution and misery in which so many are living. If it was good enough to do these things in order to fight the Germans, it ought to be good enough to do them in order to fight poverty and destitution. Sooner or later this House will have to take in hand
the question of how we are going to restore a home market in this country. We have sooner or later to settle down to the task of seeing that every inch of land which can be cultivated, is cultivated, and cultivated, not in order to create rent or dividends or profit, but in order to create food for the service of the masses of the people.

9.0 P.M.

Mr. BARNES: I beg to second the Motion.
I consider that the speech of the Mover of this Resolution succeeded it, stripping of all pretence the operations of the Food Commission. The purpose of his argument has been to prove, in quoting the profits of many food companies in this country and abroad, that the cost of profit, like the cost of wages and other expenses, eventually finds its way into the cost of the commodity. We take this opportunity of pointing out to the House and to the country that, whereas hon. Members opposite and those who advocate the principle of private enterprise are for ever pointing their finger to the problem of wage costs in the production of food and other corn-modifies, they never point to the profit, the interest and the dividend cost as finding its way into the price of commodities. There is one difference between the wage cost and the profit cost. The wage cost does maintain life; it does give a standard of living to the individual who performs a useful task in society. That individual is necessary to the production of goods and commodities. There is no wage operation in this country in any industry, and particularly in the production of food, where any person can point out that the wage return is in excess of the function and the service performed. But when we come to the return of profit on capital in relation to sonic of the figures that have been read out to-night—not the profits of smaller concerns that do not effect the prices of commodities, but the profits of large operating companies, whose total figures run into millions—we find that those profits ultimately effect not only prices, but the return to those who perform useful service.
When we turn to profits of this description, which are published in the returns of the Inland Revenue authorities, I
think we shall see that there is legitimate point in a Motion which asks the Conservative Government why they are fooling about with food supplies and food prices when they already have the necessary information to enable them to proceed with legislation. During the General Election a newspaper which supported the party opposite, the "Daily Mail," worked up quite an effective stunt under the heading, "What is up?" The answer was, "Food is up, unemployment is up, but there are no houses up," and all of these results of the ordinary operation of the capitalist system were laid at the door of the Labour Government which had been in office for about six Months. As a matter of fact, the upward movement in the cost of foodstuffs was not nearly so great during the Labour Government's term of office as it has been during the three months' term of office of the hon. Gentlemen opposite. We are entitled to ask the "Daily Mail" why it does not come out now with the cry that the Conservative Government is responsible for the increase during recent months in the cost of food supplies, but, in place of the Conservative Government, the "Daily Mail" has selected the poor greengrocer as the villain of the piece.
In view of the Mover's effective analysis of the operations of private enterprise in profiteering, I wish to turn my attention to another phase of the problem. When we take the production of foodstuffs at the source, when we take the marketing and transportation. the manufacture and preparation and, ultimately, the distribution and consumption of foodstuffs, and especially when we relate a problem of this description to a country like Great Britain, we are faced with some phases peculiar to our country. One of the problems of the food supply of Great Britain is the fact. that the country itself only supplies roughly 30 per cent. of the national requirements, and we have to go overseas for roughly 70 per cent. of the food of the people. Obviously, therefore, the problem is not merely an internal one. The problem is to relate the home. consumption to international supplies generally. One would surely argue that any nation in that position should have more organisation, a more centralised control, and some guiding hand or power regulating this important and vital supply. The supply is not only important from the point of view of the sustenance
of the great majority of the people but it is linked up with our industrial system. Under private enterprise cheap food is more or less essential in Great Britain to enable us to meet the need to export our industrial goods.
Despite the fact that the prosperity of British agriculture is absolutely at the mercy of world supplies and world price, the policy of the Conservative party, of capitalism and-private enterprise, is to leave this vital service to the chance enterprise of private individuals and private companies—a service with so many possibilities for good or ill to the whole of the community. I do not emphasise the necessity for tackling this problem in an efficient and national way solely because of its effect on British agriculture. That is important, I know, but the British farmer is just like any shareholder in any of the companies which have been mentioned. During the War, he had an excellent opportunity of serving the people of this country. During the War the farmers of Great Britain, if they had been wise enough and far-sighted enough, would not have exploited the fact that the home market was at their mercy to the extent to which they did. Had they treated the consumers fairly and equitably, I suggest there would be a larger volume of opinion in the towns to-day in their favour, and the town dwellers would have made considerable sacrifices to render British agriculture a permanent and live force in the country. But the British farmer bled the consumer when he had his opportunity just as much as any of those concerns mentioned by the Mover.

Mr. LAMB: Was there one single item of agricultural produce not controlled?

Mr. BARNES: That was another instance of the operation of the capitalist system. Control during the War was not co-operative control.

Captain GEE: What about the cooperative stores of which the hon. Member is a director?

Mr. BARNES: I will deal with that, if you like. As I say, it was not co-operative control. Nearly all the persons in key positions in State Departments at that period were nominated by private concerns. The whole operation of the Ministry of Food, and other Departments, was organised from the
point of view of keeping intact private enterprise and private organisation and profits were deliberately fixed during the War to meet the most uneconomical form of commercial organisation. Take the butchers, for instance. The price of meat during the War was fixed in relation to the most uneconomical shop almost in this country.

Mr. LAMB: That was not the farmer!

Mr. BARNES: It applied to the farmer as well. It applied right through the-whole realm of profits. Does the hon. Member deny the fact that farmers during the War had a very rosy time in regard to wheat prices, meat prices, milk prices, and almost all the prices one could mention. The profits were lavish, as far as food' control was concerned, to the farmers of the country, and they took full advantage of the fact. If they had been more farsighted they would have a greater amount of sympathy from the urban population. than they have at the moment. When we turn to the question of marketing and transport we find an essential feature of the problem of food supplies. It is that the more chaos you have, the more competing elements there are, and the more intervention by middlemen, the more unnecessary factors, and the greater lack of organisation among farmers, and all this means a duplication of services, of plant, of machinery, and of expenses which, again, often find their way into the price of the commodity. You cannot cheapen the marketing and transport of foodstuffs, whether produced in this country or abroad, unless you have some co-ordinating and controlling influence operating for the nation and compelling all these processes to be subsidiary to the supply of foodstuffs to the people. You can never get that until producers. and consumers are organised on a cooperative basis so as to avoid overlapping in marketing and transport. You can never get the utilisation of byproducts which is so essential as regards reducing the cost of the goods; you can never got the adequate handling of the surplus supply, which can be made a factor in regulating the return to the producer, until you have cooperative organisation. One year we may get a bountiful harvest, more than sufficient to meet the demand, but there is no advantage to the farmer and the producer to-day if nature is good to them
and there is no advantage to the consumer if nature provides a bountiful harvest. If the supplies exceed the market demand, the farmers' price, instead of being good, falls to the bottom level, and he is often worse off when he has a good crop than when he has a poor crop. Can any hon. Member justify, in a community like ours, a position of affairs in which a bountiful harvest is injurious to the producer and often wasteful to the consumer.
Under conditions of that sort, you find wheat, when thousands of people are starving in our cities, fed to the boilers of steamships for the purpose of propulsion. You find fish, and milk, and other vital commodities, required by tens of thousands of people in this country who are under-fed, thrown away as useless, under a system of private enterprise. I say that any system that destroys food or the product of labour and nature while there is one person going without cannot be defended either on moral or economic grounds. Take cheap transport. How can you ever get the cheapening of food supplies until some powerful machinery representing the power of the State can co-ordinate and organise the transportation to avoid overlapping? At present, you find one farmer in one part of the country sending his goods to the other extreme of the country, where there is another farmer sending his goods back to the first locality. There is not one direction in regard to food supplies in which you do not find that the lack of organisation, the leaving it to chance on the part of private enterprise to serve the community, is responsible largely for the chaos and confusion and increase in the price of food supplies generally.

Mr. LAMB: How is it that the cooperative people can make it pay?

Mr. BARNES: It is because, on organisation and distribution, there is a measure and a margin under the general cost prevailing in private enterprise; because, although we work on market prices and current prices generally, if you take our surplus, it goes back to the consumer instead of to a small group of private shareholders. and the net cost of co-operative service generally is below the net cost of private enterprise generally.

Mr. LAMB: The whole of your farming operations have lost thousands of pounds.

Mr. BARNES: The hon. Member is taking a particular phase of co-operation, and there is an explanation of that. The explanation is that we were compelled to go into farming at a most expensive period, because we were being held up for our supplies by the operation of private enterprise. I can quote one instance where a private milk company tried to compel a co-operative society, owing to the operations of the margin of food control, to pay 2d. and 3d. a gallon more to accept the machinery they wished to lay down. The co-operative societies purchased their farms when they were at the highest price, and we have had to meet, in the ordinary way, the losses and depreciation of stock and the writing down of all values after the War. Nevertheless, I suggest that in farming, elsewhere, the co-operative movement will ultimately come out successfully and show the people of this country how to replace private enterprise.

Mr. WRAGG: Would it not be better if co-operative societies reduced the price to the consumer and showed the profiteers how the price could be reduced?

Mr. BARNES: The co-operative movement does that repeatedly. If it were not for the co-operative movement, the price of bread would be much higher than it is to-day. We can produce case after case of that sort, and it is the usual experience of co-operative societies that they are always being bombarded by private bakers to put up their price, and repeatedly they refuse, but I do not want to be side-tracked from my main argument. Let us turn to the manufacture and preparation of foodstuffs. How does private enterprise serve the community there? The cost of foodstuffs is not measured entirely by price, because the local authorities of this country have to maintain an army of inspectors, detecting impurities and the adulteration of food—stuffs supplied by private enterprise. The public naturally want pure food and a sufficient variety, and they want properly graded and guaranteed food. There is no difficulty in ascertaining the requirements of the public, but you can never meet those ascertained requirements until you have some coordinated system operating through the State and the local authorities or co-operative control.
The farther you move away from the producer, the more waste and inefficiency
to translate into law the equality that has been granted to them in the political field. Although we have a preamble which creep into private enterprise in the problem of food supply. Take, for instance, distribution alone, distribution of the finished commodity. You will find there is hardly one article or one food product that the people of this country consume of which the cost, after it leaves the producer, when it is sold to the consumer is not greater than the price which the producer receives for it. The producer in practically every case gets a less price for producing the commodity than is put on after it leaves the farm or the land and before it finds its way to the consumer's table. That, in itself, is an indication of the wastefulness that exists, and if you take the bread, milk, coal, or any of those commodities that are distributed from house to house, under a coordinated system of distribution, avoiding the overlapping that goes on to-day. you could halve the price of distribution, and, while reducing the price to the consumer, you could at the same time give an additional price to the grower. Obviously, the grower and the consumer are the only two factors that should be considered in this problem of the growth and distribution of food, and why should modern society allow a whole host of parasitical influences and services to stand in between the producer and the consumer, taking their toll for their unnecessary services?
My last point is this: hon. Members opposite are continually telling us that we are the unpatriotic party, and that we have no interest in the development of the Empire. Their interest in the development of the Empire is in regard to how far they can exploit it. They are not prepared to serve the Empire if it would interfere with profit-making, but there is no direction in which you could get a better, a. finer, and a more permanent system of Imperial development than by linking up the home market with Imperial supplies. Why do you not develop the policy—you have the power, and you would get support from this side—of going to the Governments of Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, and saying: "Here in Great Britain there is a great potential market, and it is to our interests if you can produce the goods that we require and cooperate with us in marketing those goods
on the British markets at a less cost than we can get elsewhere?" There you have a natural linking up, a natural interdependence, of Imperial services with the home country, and we are prepared to support a policy of that sort, if the State will ruthlessly interfere with private enterprise, which is inefficient if it can no longer perform its service to the people at home and abroad. We are prepared to support the policy of the Government saying that their object is to supply the people of Great Britain with cheap food, not cheap food to bring down wages but cheap food to give them a larger opportunity and a more generous opportunity for a larger life. If you do that, we shall support you. You go on fooling about with Food Commissions of this sort, playing with one of the most vital issues. You cannot. complain if, when the time comes, and we are-authorised by the people to tackle the vital and fundamental problem of modern society, we deal with it in our own way. If, when we get a Labour Government with a full majority backed by the people of this country, at least in this matter we shall have no hesitation in removing private enterprise, which has completely failed in this service, and substituting co-operative control—whether co-operation of producers and consumers or co-operation in its larger sense by State control. I have much pleasure in seconding the Motion.

Major SALMON: I crave the indulgence of the House as a new Member in taking part for the first. time in debate. I. felt compelled to do this after having listened to the observations that have fallen from the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury). He seems to suggest that it is a crime to have a business undertaking. I have even heard it said by leaders of the Labour party that they would much prefer settling questions of wages with large employers than with small. That has often been stated, yet we find the hon. Member making a statement that, generally, it is undesirable that we should have private enterprise in this country and that, in particular, we should go in for nationalising the whole of the food services of the country instead. The results of such suggestions as have been thrown out by the hon. Member are to be seen in Russia where they started out with the idea of
showing how food was going to be produced by the people for the people, and the capitalist system completely abolished. The position to-day is that they are forced to go out into the world and obtain food for the sustenance of their own people. Yet we have hon. Members getting up on the benches opposite and suggesting that we in this country should follow suit. The success of this country has been built-up entirely by private enterprise. I would remind the House that the growth of the Dominions they have been speaking about this evening is entirely due to the personal capacity, hard work, and ambition of the individual, and not to State action. It is due to private enterprise that we have to-day the great States of Australia, New Zealand, Canada and South Africa. When it is suggested that we should nationalise the industries of this country, I am afraid that unemployment, fearfully high as it is to-day, will be multiplied many times. The hon. Gentleman has said, why do not we have the assistance of municipalities? May I take for one moment the case of the London County Council, which, after all, does run certain services entirely for the people. One finds that no sooner do officials, however brilliant they may be as officials employed by the Government or the municipal authorities, interfere with business enterprise than they make a failure of it. It is easy to see the reason, when you come to consider the matter—and this hon. Members opposite do not always realise—that to make a business successful you have to understand your business.
If you wish to be a competent civil servant you have to be trained for it. This country has the most eminent officials in the world, but they have never been trained for business; and, therefore, if asked to run a business enterprise, they will fear to take responsibility of doing anything that requires vision or anticipation. Can anyone imagine that a business can grow and develop without vision and imagination? I am quite convinced that, if we want to see prices higher than they are to-day, we shall hand over business to State officials. May I remind the hon. Gentleman who is advocating this course, that during the War, when officials were enabled to know the number of persons to
be fed, and the amount of food each was going to eat, even then they had an enormous difficulty in obtaining and maintaining supplies. Their method of purchase was so bad that there was in this country sufficient butter, sugar and bacon to reduce the value of those three commodities enormously owing to the fact that these had been bought—and it is on record—at a very high price. They had not bought well so far as quality was concerned, and consequently they had to sell at a considerable loss. If this happened when they knew how many people they had to provide for, imagine what would happen if they did not know. Would hon. Members suggest that we should make contracts with the Dominions for the supply of certain commodities, and ignore food coming in competition from some of the South American States? They would have settled their price with the Dominions and food would be coming in from the South American States. Or would they suggest saying," You must not bring that food in: it can only be brought in provided that we, the Government, purchase it beforehand." If that. is their idea, I want to suggest to the House that when they discuss the question of a trust, they are creating a trust. At the present time in businesses where food is sold there is enormous competition, and it is a fine thing that there is competition, because it is a fine stimulus to trade. I suggest that as soon as all commodities were purchased by one big national concern, so soon would food be much dearer, for there would be no competition to show the mistakes made. The result would be that the public would pay for those mistakes.
The hon. Member for Bow and Bromley stated that at the last Election we said that, if we. were returned, food would be cheaper. I should like to make the definite statement that, so far as I am concerned, in my division such a statement was never made—rather the reverse. It was said that the Labour party at the Election before last told the people, "If you return us, your food will be. cheaper." They had no right to say that, because neither they nor we have any control over prices. It is purely a question of supply and demand, and the man who thinks he has a panacea for dealing with the high cost of foodstuffs, is living
in a fool's paradise. If we want to have prices lower than they are to-day—and am quite sure we all do—the only real way to do it is to increase the sources of supply, because, as I have already said, it is a case of supply and demand.
In listening to the Debate up to now, one seems generally to have heard that, because companies pay dividends, they commit crimes, and they must necessarily be profiteers. I venture 10 think that that view is wrong; it cannot be substantiated. I might remind the House, that the right hon. Gentleman the late President of the Board of Trade, when he occupied that office, was asked if there was any profiteering in food supplies. He turned round to this House and said, in so many words," I have no evidence that any profiteering, or that any trust exists." It ill becomes the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley to say, a few months afterwards, that there exist in this country a large number of trusts. I think myself the idea of trusts is merely a fetish of the Labour party, and, that they do not, in fact, exist.

Miss WILKINSON: While appreciating the maiden speech of the hon. Gentleman, I wish to bring the discussion back to the subject which we have put on the Order Paper. This is not a Debate on the comparative methods of nationalisation and private interests, but it is a very definite vote of censure on this Food Commission. There is an immense amount of dissatisfaction with this Commission, especially on the part of the working-class women of this country. Our first objection to it, is its composition, and mainly because there is no working-class housewife on the Commission. I have nothing whatever to say about the ladies who are on that Commission, but I do want to say that the people who are most affected by the profiteering which exists, and by the possible results of this Commission, are the women who have to spend the working men's wages, and they are not represented. I think that is an almost fatal defect of this Commission. Secondly, those of us who have followed very closely the working of this Commission have viewed with grave apprehension the assumptions that are taken as axioms by this Commission before even asking questions of the witnesses.
If you take the evidence of the retail meat butchers, you find continually the assumption that the control of prices during the War was a fair one, and comparisons are made between that control of prices during the War and the present price, in order to decide whether profiteering exists. We have heard from the hon. Member who seconded this Motion what is an undoubted fact, that under Conservative control what happened was that prices were fixed at a standard at which the worst circumstanced district could make a profit. That was definitely stated by the late Lord Rhondda. If that price at a time of artificial shortage, owing to war conditions, be taken as the standard, and then, at a time of very real plenty in the world's supplies, we are to consider whether the difference between the two is profiteering, I suggest the Commission is starting its work on ail entirely false assumption.
Let me give some figures. It was pointed out that meat to-day, which was bought wholesale at 10d. a lb., is now being sold at 2s. 4d., that the controlled wholesale price was is. 2d. and the controlled retail price 2s. 2d., so that, while there was a reduction of 6d. in the wholesale prices, there was 2d. increase in the retail price. I submit it not 2d., but something infinitely more represents the actual profiteering in meat. The second assumption, which is much less culpable, and, perhaps, quite natural, but none the less is going to affect the report of this Commission, is the fact that the cost-of-living figure is taken as the basis of actual prices. What the working class housewife wants to know is where you can buy the goods at the prices given in the Board of Trade cost-of-living figures. We know it has been stated over and over again, that what they take are not actual prices in the shops, but prices supplied to them by retailers, and prices not checked by any consumers' organisation. Therefore, on that basis we have a profiteering price supplied, and on that basis the Commission does its work.
To come to another point. We have seen that, right from the very beginning of this Commission, there has been an attempt to whitewash those people who came before it representing what we consider profiteering organisations. It has been most astounding. I do not know
whether hon. Members have troubled to read the reports, but, if so, they will have found an amazing difference between the attitude of the Chairman when addressing Lord Vestey, or huge employers of labour who come before him, and when speaking to Mr. E. F. Wise, of the Independent Labour Party, or others who have come before him. It is not too much to say that the Chairman of this Commission has acted as counsel for the defence in the case of profiteers who came before him, and towards Labour representatives as though they were prisoners in the dock.
Another point we arc very much concerned about is the attempt of the Chairman each time to bring out from the witnesses evidence which will give the public the reasons for these prices. Let me give one of the most astounding attempts, it seems to me, made in this direction, and on the question of meat. There were certain housewives who came as witnesses. One of them stated in her evidence that the men of the country to-day would not be content with the poor quality of food they were content with before the War. That statement was seized upon by the Commission. The Chairman put questions upon it to raise up a ease which has been taken up in the newspapers and magnified far in excess of anything that the woman witness had apparently in her mind when she was bringing up the reasons for the high prices of meat today, and it was suggested that the reason of the high prices of meat to-day was that the workers buy the best cuts and will not buy any others. Even if that were true—and it is so ridiculously untrue as to be hardly worth examination for a moment—whatever the workers may prefer, consider a worker's wife buying the very best filet steak, when the husband is a fitter with a wage of £2 7s. per week, and they have five children to bring up on that amount! The husband, I imagine, is not going to get much filet steak. The mere statement is ridiculous on the face of it.
Again, there is the assumption on the part of the Commission that the workers must be content with the very poorest and the roughest food. I want to suggest to hon. Gentlemen opposite that they have to face a very different social problem to-day than had their predecessors
to face in 1014. For four years you took the vast majority of the manhood of the country. For the first time in their lives you put hundreds of thousands of them into a decent suit of clothes, with decent boots upon their feet, and you gave them three square meals a day. You told them that the British Empire depended upon them. Having done their bit, this Food Commission turns round to them and says: "Very well, now you can go home, and take care you only get the very poorest food and leave the best for others." Literally, what an amazing attitude on the part of the gentlemen who form this Commission. If we are going to accept the axiom that the demand for meat is greater than the supply, and that in order to cut down the price we must restrict consumption—I suppose this is the economic doctrine—what class ought to cut down their consumption of meat in order that the price should he less for the others? I am going to suggest to hon. Gentleman opposite that if we act on the basis of the Food Commission's assumption it is hon. Gentlemen in this House who should cut down their consumption of meat. The class which is represented so largely by hon. Gentlemen opposite is not the class which does the hard physical work—if I may judge from my own observation. It should cut down its standard of meat and it would not he one penny the worse. I suggest that the miner, the steel-worker, and those men I represent here, who have to put in eight hours a day before a furnace—those men should have the necessary food to do this heavy work. If we are going to have a class to cut down its consumption of meat, it is an amazing presumption on the part of the Food Commission to suggest that the working classes, with the heavy work to do, should cut down their consumption.
I want to suggest another thing to the Chairman of the Commission. Certain members of the Commission have tried to suggest that the amount of profiteering that goes on is not so very large, and have pointed out that there is only a slight rise in prices in some of the important food commodities. But it never seems to have occurred to the Commission to realise that certain staple articles of food do, as a matter of fact, form an almost excessive portion of the expenditure in the average working class
family. That is something that the house wife would like to place before this House and the Commission. If you take figures supplied by the Board of Trade you find that the proportion of lowest incomes in the cases quoted on the present basis is not less than 67 per cent. Those connected with the Food Commission may consider that a penny increase in a loaf of bread is not a great deal and attempt to belittle it; whereas it may seem to them that that is not very much, to gentlemen who perhaps spend thousands from the family purse, that penny on the loaf of bread means a most tremendous thing to the housewives of this country. It means that somebody has actually to go without food. I do suggest to the Commission and to this House that to deal in a sneering way, as sometimes this Commission has dealt, with some of the. witnesses who have come before it, and especially in relation to the amount of profits made, has raised the indignation of the women of this country to an extent that is not realised by members of the Commission.
We put down this Motion very definitely as a Vote of Censure on the present Commission and on the way it has worked. I am not one of those who suggest that the Government, in putting forward this Food Commission, were not acting in good faith, but I do say that the actions of the Commission have very greatly shaken the faith of people in the good faith of the Prime Minister when he appointed that Commission. If he was going to appoint a Commission, he ought to have at. least appointed people who were suffering from the effects of high prices. The Commission has been one which has whitewashed various operations and business activities. I hope that the Government will urge upon the Commission to take a very different attitude to that it has taken up till now. If the Commission does not do that, its Report will be regarded as much of a farce as is the Commission itself.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: I desire to speak for just two or three minutes, and to say one or two things very definitely about the procedure of this Commission. I, myself, have attended as a witness on two occasions, and probably shall have to do so again. I suggest to hon. Members that the chief objection to the procedure of the Commission has been crystallised by hon. Friends behind me
on the Chairman of the Commission. I should like to remind the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, that there was in the Press in January a scare about tea—if I might have the attention of the right hon. Gentleman for a moment.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I was talking to your Whip.

Mr. ALEXANDER: As a result of the scare run in the "Daily Mail," information was asked for with regard to the tea position, and I myself supplied the Board of Trade with very full information with regard to the tea position. I afterwards appeared as a witness before the Commission. As a result of the report which was submitted by the co-operative movement through myself to the Board of Trade, it was stated that there would be no necessity for any special evidence to be called with regard to tea. Ten days later, appearing before the Commission as a witness on an entirely different subject, and asked to bring technical evidence and witnesses only with regard to wheat, flour and bread, suddenly during that evidence I was asked lo answer questions with regard to tea supplies and lea stocks. Because we asked then for notice of questions of that kind horn the Royal Commission, we are so treated by the Chairman of the Commission as to lead the Press to report for days after that that apparently the witness had desired to withhold information from the Royal Commission. And after we had supplied another report, a second report, to the Royal Commission, a tardy announcement is made that after all there was nothing in the point which had been put against the co-operative movement. Surely that is very unfair procedure for any Commission to pursue. I have not seen any similar procedure adopted towards any other witness on any other subject which the Commission has taken up.
It is just as well that the House should know something of what the true position was. As a fact, we have born able to demonstrate, in the last 12 months, that the collectivist operations of the working-class consumers not only saved the consumers organised in that movement hundreds of thousands of pounds upon tea, but. also saved all the rest of the community, as well, very considerable sums, though, as the right hon. Gentleman
will remember from questions put by me from this bench, I have pointed out to him that there has been an attempt in the last 12 months to corner tea, supplies in this country, and to make a change of basis in the market at Mincing Lane. Had it not been for the existence of the co-operative organisation, they would probably have been successful in their aims. When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) took the duty off tea. last April, and an increased demand came, the price soared on the market. Why did it soar at once? It was because firms who had agreed to try to corner the market by arranging forward contracts for tea still growing, and who, in order to do this, had at first depressed the home market by putting supplies on the market, had found themselves short when tin-demand came, went on the market to buy, had to buy for four or five months, and in doing so raised prices to the consumer to such an extent that the whole of the advantage given by my right hon. Friend in the Budget last year was lost in the wholesale price. But during the whole of that time the co-operative consumers' movement never raised its price, until 16th October. The other people were raising prices, and if it had not been for this working-class organisation working on the lines which my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Ham (Mr. Barnes) spoke of to-night, there would have been far greater soaring of the price of tea. The same thing applied with regard to other commodities which the Commission has dealt with.
There is one other point I want to put to the right hon. Gentleman before I sit clown. There is a considerable feeling, and I think a feeling with some ground for it, that the Commission has been wrong in procedure, because it finds itself now unable to obtain all the facts that a Royal Commission ought to obtain. My point is that it might have decided at the commencement of its proceedings to examine its powers, and to use all its powers to the full to investigate completely the accounts and operations and costings of firms at all stages. and if it found it had not sufficient powers it should have obtained those powers, as it could have done from the Board of Trade, through Parliament if necessary, or by getting the dispensation which can be
afforded to Royal Commissions. It should have completed its investigations—not merely putting accused persons into the box, examining them, hearing their statements, and then finishing, but investigating the matter from beginning to end in each particular trade and with regard to each particular firm involved. Until the Royal Commission adopts some process such as this, it will never arrive at the truth which it ought to be desirous of arriving at.
10.0 P.M.
Another point, which has been made already by the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury), is that a great deal of the information necessary for action by the Government if they had desired to take action was already in existence. I gave evidence on seven or eight occasions before the Committee which my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade had some connection with, I think—the Linlithgow Committee. The Linlithgow Committee made a large number of recommendations with regard to food prices, and I have yet to learn, although that was a Committee set up by a Conservative Government, that many of these recommendations have been put into effect. So much detailed evidence with regard to costs and profits was given before the Linlithgow Committee that the Government had plenty or material to act upon if they had really desired to act; and if that evidence had not been sufficient, they had heaps of other material to go upon in the Reports, which exist in the files of the right hon. Gentleman's Department, compiled by the sub-Committees under the Central Profiteering Committee, nearly every one of which recommended at the time that legislation should be passed by this House to secure the desired end. The present Prime Minister, when he was President of the Board of Trade in 1921–22, decided not to act upon those considered recommendations of sub-Committees under the Central Profiteering Committee. We are now having what has appeared to be almost a make-believe inquiry by a Royal Commission set up by the Prime Minister, although with all the information which was obtained under the Central Profiteering Committee, and with the definite recommendations they laid before him, he decided when he was President of the
Board of Trade that it would not serve any useful purpose for him to act.
I think there is still room for the Royal Commission to improve and for the Government to help it to improve. One result of this Debate to-night will be. I hope, to bring home to the Government the keenness with which the whole country is following the inquiry by the Royal Commission. As ray hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough East (Miss Wilkinson) has said, a great deal of dissatisfaction exists throughout the country with the way the Commission is proceeding, and we want the. Government to see what it can do to get the Royal Commission to expedite the reports it now has under preparation, because if we are not going to get the interim reports on meat and bread until Easter, although the Commission has been sitting since 10th December, I suppose we may not get the reports on all essential foodstuffs until perhaps 1027. or 1928 or 1929 or 1930—nobody knows exactly when. I would also ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will see that the Royal Commission, if they have not sufficient powers, obtain powers to go into the costings and profits at all stages of firms dealing in foods. I hope that as a result of the evidence already given one of the recommendations of the Royal Commission, which I hope will be acted upon by the right hon. Gentleman, is that all the great firms in the country dealing in food supplies shall be required to file with the Board of Trade or Somerset House, a much more fuller statement of accounts than is now required, and that they should be audited by a public auditor

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I do not propose to follow all the speakers who have taken part in the Debate, because they have travelled over a very wide course. I would like to confine myself more to the terms of the Motion which has been set down on the Paper. The hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) delighted the House with a. most entertaining account of a. large number of people and firms. The hon. Gentleman said a good deal about the activities of those firms during the War. I can assure him that for my part I have no more use for the war profiteer than I have for the conscientious objector, and if ever we find ourselves involved in another war, which
Heaven forbid, I shall be ready to join with the hon. Member in doing my best to suppress the activities of both those classes of people. The Motion which has been moved is designed to criticise the Royal Commission, and I will say a word about that in a moment. The second part of the Resolution is designed to express regret that action, legislative or otherwise, has not been taken upon the mass of evidence already available. I think that speech would have been more effective had it been delivered at a meeting of the hon. Member's own party any time during the nine months when the Labour Government were in office.

Mr. MARCH: Nothing can be done in nine months.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: We did something the very first month we came into office and we did exactly what the. Prime Minister promised we should do. [An HON. MEMBER: "What was it?"] Hon. Members opposite must not be so anxious about this scrutiny of their own past. The hon. Member for Bow and Bromley said it was most regrettable that action was riot taken upon the mass of evidence already available and the mass of evidence offered to the Royal Corn-mission on Food Prices, and he expressed the opinion that the Commission consists of wrong-headed people who know nothing about the subject. This means that if you want to solve a business proposition you must consult: with those who know nothing about business.
The suggestion that action should have been taken upon the evidence obtained before the Royal Commission sat was supported by the hon. Member who was Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade in the Labour Government (Mr. Alexander) and he lectured me very severely, saying that in the office of the Board of Trade there are masses of evidence and facts carefully tabulated—the records of the Linlithgow Committee and the Profiteering Committee. To use language which has often been used by the party opposite whose benches are now somewhat void, we were told that that was a reform which" brooks no delay," but the hon. Gentleman the late Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade and the greatest of all statisticians, the right hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Webb), were at the Board of Trade for nine months,
and why did they not produce one of those urgent reforms which they now declare are so simple and short and easy to produce when you have the evidence which is already to hand. Both the hon. Member for the Hillsborough Division (Mr. A. V. Alexander) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Seaham sat together in the Board of Trade for nine months and they did nothing at all.

Mr. ALEXANDER: I want to point out that the Profiteering Sub-Committee did supply information upon which the late, Minister of Health introduced a Profiteering Bill which the present Government have not proceeded with, and we were also at work on another Measure which we could not proceed with for want of Parliamentary time.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The period of gestation was very long, but I cannot really imagine that a more rapid action would have led to a miscarriage of justice. If it be true that careful consideration is required in this matter, then I think we have been reasonably prompt. I think all the strictures of the hon. Member apply with tremendous strength if directed to the Leaders of his own party, and I have no doubt he will develop that part of his speech which was unhappily ruled out of Order, and which I was longing to hear, at his next party meeting. The challenge that was thrown out to me by the hon. Gentleman was that we were not carrying out our pledges. As a matter of fact, we are doing exactly what we promised to do. The hon. Member gave an account of various electioneering efforts, although I do not think his account was very accurate. He challenged the Prime Minister, and I am going to take him up on that point. The Prime Minister may not be quite so astute an electioneer—

Mr. LANSBURY: Do not belittle him.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: At any rate, he is an extraordinarily honest electioneer, and I believe that honesty is the best policy, because it has its own reward and it brings its sheaves with it. The Prime Minister, so far from holding out false hopes about food, made a most sincere speech in the course of the Election in which he said that anybody was very immoral who said he could guarantee to reduce the price of food,
because it was not within the capacity of any one person to do that. That was a very honest statement. He went on to say that there was one thing, and one thing only, which he would undertake to do, and that was that, if he was returned, he would appoint a Royal Commission.

Mr. WHEATLEY: Why?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Why? To find the facts.

Mr. LANSBURY: You have had two before.

Mr. WHEATLEY: If the Prime Minister believed that no one could do anything to bring down the price of food, why appoint a Commission?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The right hon. Gentleman is a very subtle controversialist. What the Prime Minister said was that no one could guarantee to bring down the price of food, but he did say that he would see what could be done to help in the matter, and. as the result he appointed the Royal Commission, assisted by very able people, both men and women. I do not want to anticipate their Report, and do not know what is going to be in it hat I expect, and shall be greatly disappointed if I do not find in it, some very much more capable and well thought-out suggestions than that last effort which was so rapidly thrown off by the right hon. Gentleman in the last days of his greatness. I am not quite sure whether he carried all his colleagues with him, but T do not want to go into that. The Prime Minister, therefore, exactly fulfilled his pledge in appointing this Commission. He appointed it with great rapidity, and it has acted with great. rapidity. It is not there to put matters to sleep. It has held a great many meetings, and it has examined, I think, 90 witnesses.

Mr. DUNCAN: Has it hatched anything?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: It is laying an egg at the present moment, and I do not think I am making either a premature or an indiscreet disclosure when I say that I think we shall receive that egg by Easter. So far from appointing a Commission in order to put matters to sleep, the Commission has been appointed in order that it may deal with matters, and, judging by what we have
heard to-night, it appears to have been dealing effectively and impartially with a great many people. There is something to be said for a certain brutal frankness when you are dealing with practical problems. No Commission, I think, at any time, has acted with greater speed than this Commission has. I want to take up just one or two points that have been made in criticism. It was said that it was wrong ever to hear evidence in camera, I do not think that that is at all a reasonable complaint. If you want to get full evidence of the details of people's businesses—and that is necessary in an inquiry of this kind—you must allow the body which inquires to have a discretion as to whether it will have that evidence given in public or in private. Of course, if what you desire to do is to destroy a business, then I can well imagine that you may want to disclose every particular about that business to its foreign competitors; but if, instead of that, you want to get at the facts—

Mr. ALEXANDER: Is that why we happened to he the only people to whom questions on stocks were put in public?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The hon. Gentleman, in common with any other witnesses, has full power to ask that any evidence of a confidential character, the disclosure of which he thinks would be undesirable, shall be given in camera, and I am perfectly certain that the Commission will give exactly the same treatment, in regard to whether it hears evidence in public or in private, to any firm, any individual, or any society in this country.

Mr. LANSBURY: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it would injure a business if it were stated in public what the private companies subsidiary to it paid in interest?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I certainly would not give a decision as to what evidence in a particular case—

Mr. LANSBURY: It is the crucial point.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Really, if the hon. Gentleman puts a question to me, he must allow me to answer it. I think I have probably had as much
experience of the taking of evidence in Courts of Law, and also of business matters, as he has himself. I certainly would not give any ruling in advance as to what kind of evidence might or might not be of value to a commercial rival. I say, with full experience, that you cannot possibly lay down a hard and fast rule, and if you want to get at the facts and get your full evidence given, it is absolutely necessary to give the tribunal which is making the examination a full discretion as to what things it hears in public and what evidence it hears in private.
The hon. Member criticised the personnel of the Commission. I may sum it up by saying, "This is a very disgraceful affair. You want to find out how you are to run the business of food in this country more efficiently and cheaper, so that you get a more efficient service and a cheaper supply to the community, and how do you set to work? You have put on this Commission, men and women of affairs, men of experience and capacity, men who have been successful in business. It is outrageous. One or two of these men have actually been associated in business with Lord Inchcape; they have been indeed so far disqualified for any public service or any business service that they have been selected by Lord Inchcape to be his associates in business. What a tremendous disqualification that is for a business inquiry." I will say one thing about the hon. Member. He is always absolutely faithful to the principle and practice of Poplarism. There is only one crime and that is making money. But when he comes back into office, as I am sure he will, I believe he will find that the business which makes money is really not the worst kind of business. It pays taxes, for instance, which is really rather important when you have to get relief for Poplar. As he explained to me, he was able in Poplar to get far better terms on an overdraft than I could hope to get because he got his from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I had to get mine from the bank. He is very lucky. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer has got to get the money he advances to Poplar from somewhere and he gets it out of the taxes, and the bulk of the taxes come out of business, and the only business that can pay the taxes is the business that makes a profit. You do not get any out of the business that makes a loss.
Let me carry it one step further. If the hon. Member asks any of his constituents, those of them I mean who do not have a permanent preference for the dole, and I am sure the great majority of them do not—[Interruption]—he will find that the business which is able to conduct its affairs at a profit and to declare a dividend is much more likely to be a sound employer of labour and to keep men at work than the business which is run at a loss. If ever I am out to find someone to run an undertaking or to select advisers who can advise me how best to get a thing efficiently done, I shall not select the people who are always making a loss. I shall try to find people who have run their business more or less successfully, and I think the hon. Member will probably find that he will make a somewhat similar selection. I do not want to follow the hon. Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Barnes). through all his speech, particularly because I think it was completely answered by a very able speech delivered by the hon. Member for Harrow (Major Salmon). The hon. Member for East Ham, South, made two charges to which I would like to refer. The first charge was that the Ministry of Food had always been prejudiced in favour of private enterprise. I do not think that is in the least true, and I will leave the hon. Member to settle that with the right hon. Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes), who was Minister of Food for some time. He also said that prices were constantly fixed too high. That may be true. What was the experience of every Government which tried control during the War? It is much easier to control during war than at any other time, because in a war you have practically complete compulsion over the whole mass of the people. Even in an extreme Socialist state, I do not believe that you would be able to get as effective compulsion, though you would try to get it, as you can get even in an individualist state in the crisis of a war, when the great majority of the population are willing to accept every form of control and every form of discipline. Even with all these advantages in its favour, in a period like that, it was the universal experience of every country that tried to control prices, and certainly it was the
case within the British Empire, that control raised prices, because you always have to fix some mean price which was higher than the most efficient man could do it at. That is a foretaste of any form of control which anybody else is likely to bring in.
I should like to deal with one remark made by the late Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, the hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander). He referred to some questions which had been put to him, and he appeared rather to resent them. It is a very remarkable thing that he gets up here this evening and says that several questions were put to him which contained, if not allegations, at any rate suggestions that hits co-operative society had bought forward, not to meet its necessities, but because it was speculative. He said it was a perfectly disgraceful thing that he should have questions like that put to him at the Commission.

Mr. ALEXANDER: That is a most grotesque description of what I said. What I said was that there had been a campaign in the "Daily Mail" in regard to tea, and as a result of Board of Trade inquiries I submitted a statement to the Board of Trade, 10 days before I appeared at the Commission, and the opinion was then expressed by the Board of Trade that in view of that statement no special evidence was necessary in regard to tea. But in spite of that, on a day when we were called to bring technical witnesses on another subject, the question of tea was raised, without notice, without our having technical witnesses present.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am obliged to the hon. Member for that explanation, and I take what he. says. He complains of questions of that kind being asked without notice. I do not think it is a very reasonable complaint. It is very easy to take this and that out of a very long series of questions at a Royal Commission, but I would say this, quite frankly, to the hon. Member: what have we heard here to-night? We have heard a repetition of what his party have been doing all over the country—allegation after allegation brought against every sort of firm, without notice, and without the possibility of reply.

Mr. DUNCAN: Is this a Commission?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: It is a place where people did not in the past make charges which there was no opportunity of answering. As long as Members of the party opposite spend the whole of their time going up and down the country vilifying every private firm by name—[HON. MEMBERS "No!"]—they cannot complain, and when they learn to be a little more careful in the charges which they bring, it will be time enough for them to complain. I regret profoundly certain suggestions which have been made that the Commission has been showing prejudice. I have no evidence whatever of that. I found that the Commission has dealt quite firmly with anybody who came before it who, it felt, was not giving the fullest evidence that could be obtained. The hon. Gentleman thinks that criticism was directed against him, but if he reads, as I have no doubt he will, the examination of the various other people who came before the Commission, whom he would call capitalist witnesses, he will agree, I think, that nothing said to him was anything like as severe as what the Chairman and other members of the Commission have said to other people who came before them.
It has been said by one hon. Member who spoke to-night, as a matter of complaint, that. it was unreasonable to ask certain witnesses how money could be saved. That is exactly the question which the Royal Commission was bound to put to witnesses. The whole object of the Royal Commission is to find out how much can be saved so as to make food cheaper, and if it is not relevant to ask a gentle-. man, who came forward with a tremendous plan which is going to upset the whole business system of the country, wholesale and retail, how he is going to save money and give cheaper food to the people of the country, then I do not know what form of question would be relevant.
I regret sincerely that some hon. Members have thought it necessary to criticise the impartiality, while they are still sitting as a Commission and while we are still waiting for their report, of a number of men and women of great experience who are doing what is not a pleasant duty, but a very onerous duty in a thoroughly impartial way. We have all a great liking in this House for the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley, but I do not think there are many people in
any part of the House who would select him to judge in a contest of impartiality. I am asking the House to do what I think it will always do where there is a Royal Commission sitting: that is to reserve its judgment until the Royal Commission has made its report. That is the moment to consider whether the Royal Commission has done its work well. I can only suppose that in making the criticism which the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley has thought it right to make to-night, and in particular the criticism against a man whose work in the Ministry of National Service is sneered at. [Interruption.] There are many people in this House who were here during the War, and there are still more who were serving in the Army during the War, and I say without fear of contradiction that there were few men, in the service or out of it, to whom this country owed more during the last year of the Great War, for the success of the enterprise of our troops, than to Sir Auckland Geddes. He did a great deal more during the War than anybody on the Labour Benches. I can only express regret that charges of this kind have been made against members of the Commission who are honestly trying to do a very difficult task, to do it rapidly, to do it fairly and effectively, and I can only imagine that the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley was led to make these charges out of a profound regret that during the nine months his party were in office they contributed nothing whatever to the solution of this problem.

Mr. T. JOHNSTON: I do not know whether or not the right hon. Gentleman imagines that he has answered the case put from these benches. I do not know whether he considers that the second-rate university dialectics, with which he commonly regales this House, are to be considered the last reasoned word on the part of the Government in relation to the charges that have been definitely made, and made upon evidence, by the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) and others to-night. The right hon. Gentleman concluded his remarks with a eulogium of the services rendered to the nation by the Chairman of the Food Commission. What that gentleman did during the War matters nothing to the point of our discussion, but I think it clues matter to the impartiality of the
inquiry he is supposed to be undertaking at the present time whether or not the statement is true that appeared in "The People" newspaper on the date of his appointment to this Commission, namely, that he had left a job at £4,000 a year as director of the Anti-Socialist National Propaganda in order to take over the chairmanship of the Food Commission. Whatever he has done on that Commission he has at any rate not transferred his political allegiance very far from the allegiance which he was serving at the time when he was director of the Anti-Socialist National Propaganda. The hon. Member for Bow and Bromley spent a considerable portion of his time in discussing the personnel of the Commission, and I do not want to go ever the ground again except to say that there are people on that Commission who, it is believed, are not altogether financially disinterested as regards some of the witnesses who have come before them.

Captain GEE: May I ask the hon. Gentleman to give us the names?

Mr. JOHNSTON: You may ask, but you will not get an answer.

Mr. BASIL PETO: Make a statement outside, and give the names, and see what will happen.

Mr. JOHNSTON: The point I intend to deal with is the nature of this Coin-mission and the reason for its appointment. When we. get Conservative newspapers openly declaring, when this Commission was appointed, that it was to serve no useful purpose except as a "blind," I think we are entitled to say that the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley is right when he calls it a bogus Commission. I have here a quotation from a Conservative newspaper, the "Evening Citizen" of Glasgow. It is great supporter of the right hon. Gentleman who expected to be Chancellor of Exchequer under the present administration, and it says in a leading article of 19th November:
Mr. Baldwin is to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into the high price of food. Clearly this is the appropriate course to take, for Royal Commissions never do anything and nothing ever can be done to control the price of commodities. However, a Royal Commission and a little cautious publicity may help matters and cannot do any harm.
The only thing up to date that the Commission has been able to do is the British public. The right hon. Gentleman said we had supplied no evidence as to bullying and impertinence on the part of some members of the Commission towards witnesses. Let me call his attention to page 23 of the Minutes of Evidence of 31st December, 1924, questions 1697 and 1698. Sir Charles Fielding was being examined. He is not a wild Bolshevist. He was Director of Food Production during the War, and he was giving skilled testimony before the Commission, and this is the sort of question put to him:
Are you aware that in 1842"—
It sounds like Lord Rothermere undergoing his exam.—
Are you aware that in t842 Sir Robert Peel said that he regarded 58s. 9d. as a remunerative price for a quarter of 504 lbs.?
Poor Sir Charles could only say"
I am sorry I cannot say.—
Then follows the next question:
You have come here to tell us all about these figures. How are we to get on with the business? You should be able to answer our questions. Would you agree that that was said?
Poor Sir Charles, anxious to get on with the next business, replied—
I dare say it was, at the time.
After a careful examination of every minute taken of the proceedings of that. Commission, I have come to the considered conclusion that the producer makes nothing—he is level at the end of the year—that the export and transport companies are philanthropists, and are in the job for what they can give away, that the importer is a charitable institution, that the wholesaler and the retailer are on the dole, and that the only villain in the piece is the consumer, who has not been paying enough. Let me endeavour to show the right hon. Gentleman that there was no need for this Commission, that he has got all the evidence he requires in his own office, and that. he has got it impartially, as a result of an inquiry undertaken by a Committee under the chairmanship of Lord Linlithgow, a prominent member of his own party. What does Lord Linlithgow's Report say?
Our investigations have led us to the conclusion that the spread between producers' and consumers' prices is unjustifi-
ably wide. Taken as a whole, distributive costs are a far heavier burden than society will permanently consent to bear.
You have the evidence justifying that statement in your own archives. What follows?
The retailing of food from a large "lumber of establishments is in any event an extravagant method of distribution compared with, say, the system of municipal retail markets existing in many countries abroad. In the case of fruit and vegetables, there are sometimes six distributing agencies between the grower and the consumer. At each stage the produce is handled two or three times by porters or railway employes, making in some cases as many as sixteen to twenty handlings.
Further—and the hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. A. V. Alexander) on our own Front Bench will be interested in this quotation, and it answers the point which the hon. Gentleman opposite tried to make against him:
It is to he inferred, therefore, that if by improved methods these private traders reduced their costs to the level of those of industrial co-operative societies, they could correspondingly reduce prices to the public by over one-twelfth.
This is not a Committee of co-operators. As far as I know, it is a Committee composed of non-co-operators or anti-cooperators, sitting under the chairman-ship of Lord Linlithgow, which deliberately reached that opinion.
Further:
In an extreme case, the chain of distribution may be as follows: Grower, local dealer, commission salesman, commission buyer, wholesaler, second wholesaler, retailer, consumer; and the expenses incurred are multiplied accordingly, each intermediary taking his quota of commission or profit, and each stage in the passage of goods involving additional cost of handling and transport.
Finally, they say:
We wish to record our opinion in the strongest possible terms that this market (Covent Garden), the largest of its kind in the Kingdom, ought to be placed under a public authority with a view to its development in the interests of the trader and the customer.
I will not quote further from that Report, but I will quote from other agencies acceptable to hon. Members opposite. I will take the "Morning Post." It says about this precious Commission, on the 26th January:
The evidence taken as to speculation in wheat cargoes can only be called inept, and the warehousing question was not so much shirked as deliberately cut out.
The "Morning Post" further alleged that there was £175,000,000 paid annually by the consumers in this country for bread, meat and milk alone after 10 per cent. profit had been allowed to every producer and distributor who handles the commodity. The right hon. Gentleman says he is helpless. He will not have control. He will have nothing to do with control. What do they do in France? The Minister of Commerce in France gets a credit from the. Chamber for 150,000,000 francs in order to deal with French profiteers in wheat. I have here a quotation from President Coolidge of the United States of America. In a speech of 4th December, 1924, he says:
Looking to the future the Government must assist, in developing a national agricultural policy on broadly constructive lines. It will support any sound programme to release the farmer from the individualistic competitive conditions under which agriculture has been conducted. It must encourage centralised markets as a substitute for the haphazard and wasteful distributive methods of the past.
If you get the President of the United States and the Minister of Commerce in France facing pretty much the same problem as the right hon. Gentleman opposite has to face; if you get, those two gentlemen facing the problem on socialistic lines, it speaks ill indeed for the right hon. Gentleman that he should come here to-night and in reply to the statements made by the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley and others offer us his cheap witticisms and cheaper dialectics.
Let me, in conclusion, give the right hon. Gentleman a quotation. He asks where this money was lost. I will tell him. The paper called "Modern Transport" gives one case. 2,500 bags of cocoa coming from West Africa to Holland. They are intercepted at sea. They are not allowed to land in Holland. They are bought by a Liverpool merchant. The ship goes away back round the South up to the Mersey and the cargo is bought by a merchant in New York. The cargo goes away to New York. It is transhipped at New York, put on the railway, bought by a merchant in Philadelphia, sold by that Philadelphia merchant back to the Liverpool merchant again and it comes back across the Atlantic. The extra cost of transport for running round the world must, obviously, in the last resort, be paid by the consumer.Con-
sider the enormous waste of all your stock exchanges, all your stockbrokers, all your bill discounters, all your unnecessary employment of the parasitic classes, who increased in the City of London by 30 per cent, in the 10 years between the Census of 1901 and the Census of 1911, while the general population only rose by 3 per cent.
These problems have got to be faced by whatever Government is in power, and they are not faced. We may be wrong, but we have a carefully thought-out scheme. You are entitled, if you can, to pick holes in it, or you ought to produce a better scheme. You are in power with a majority. It is your duty to tell the housewives of this country, struggling under a load which they are physically unfit to bear, how you are going to deal with the profiteers, how you are going to deal with the people who, in a time of scarcity, jump prices. "Supply and demand" simply means that when you get the consumer at your mercy, you strangle him. [An HON. MEMBER: "Like the building unions!"] If that is your philosophy, if those are the principles upon which you go, then speak out straight and frank before the public. Tell the working classes you intend to take the last ounce out of them, that you intend to support the profiteering system of the capitalist class, the banking class, the landowning class.

Division No. 30.]
AYES.
[11.0 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Dunnico, H.
Lawson, John James


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lee, F.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Fenby, T. D.
Lowth, T.


Ammon, Charles George
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edln., Cent.)
Lunn, William


Attlee, Clement Richard
Greenall, T.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. B.(Aberavon)


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Mackinder, W.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)


Barnes, A.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
March, S.


Barr, J.
Groves, T.
Maxton, James


Batey, Joseph
Grundy, T. W.
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Hardie, George D.
Montague, Frederick


Bens, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Harney, E. A.
Morris, R. H.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Murnin, H.


Broad, F. A.
Hastings, Sir Patrick
Naylor, T. E.


Bromfield, William
Hayday, Arthur
Oliver, George Harold


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hayes, John Henry
Palin, John Henry


Buchanan, G.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Ponsonby, Arthur Potts,


Cape, Thomas
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
John S.


Charleton, H. C.
Hudson, J. H. Huddersfield
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Clowes, S.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Riley, Ben


Connolly, M.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Ritson, J


Cove, W. G.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W. Bromwich)


Dalton, Hugh
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)


Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Kelly, W. T.
Rose, Frank H.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Kennedy, T.
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Day, Colonel Harry
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Scrymgeour, E.


Dennison, R.
Kirkwood, D.
Scurr, John


Duncan. C
Lansbury, George
Sexton, James

We on our part say that only by a co-operative national organisation of our resources can we supply everybody in this land with the foodstuffs necessary to a decent life. It is my firm conviction, and it is the conviction of many on these benches, that the only thing that can bring this old country down is the profiteer allowed to run riot. We on these benches who stand for a national system, who stand for the commonweal, who stand for an equal right to every man and woman in the land to a fair share of the necessaries of life, we condemn the bogus Food Commission that you have set up. We intend to push you all we know until you have been driven to begin the organisation of the national resources in food supples.

Mr. T. GRIFFITHS rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question, "That the Question be now put," put, and agreed to.

Question put accordingly,
That the composition and the proceedings of the Royal Commission on Food Price are not such as to inspire public confidence, and this House is of opinion that action, legislative or otherwise, based upon the large mass of evidence already available and designed for the protection of the public against profiteering in the sale of food, should be undertaken without delay.

The House divided: Ayes, 126: Noes, 229.

Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Sutton, J. E.
Welsh, J. C.


Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Taylor, R. A.
Westwood, J.


Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Calthness)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)
Whiteley, W.


Smillie, Robert
Thurtie, E.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Tinker, John Joseph
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercilffe)


Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Varley, Frank B.
Windsor, Walter


Snell, Harry
Viant, S. P.
Wright, W.


Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)
Wallhead, Richard C.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Stamford, T. W.
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen



Stephen, Campbell
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.




Warne.




NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Macmillan, Captain H.


Agg-Gardner, Rt, Hon. Sir James T.
Falls. Sir Charles F.
Macquisten, F. A.


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
MacRobert, Alexander M.


Albery, Irving James
Fielden, E. B.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Ford, P. J.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Forestier-Walker, L.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Forrest, W.
Margesson, Captain D.


Ashmead-Bartlett, E.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Merriman, F. B.


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander, F. W.
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Ganzoni, Sir John
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Balniel, Lord
Gates, Percy
Moore, Sir Newton J.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Moreing, Captain A. H.


Beamish, Captain T. P. H.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Sallsbury)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Gower, Sir Robert
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Grant, J. A.
Murchison, C. K.


Bethell, A.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Neville, R. J.


Blundell, F. N.
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Gretton, Colonel John
Nuttall, Ellis


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Oakley, T.


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)


Brass, Captain W.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Owen, Major G.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Pennefather, Sir John


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hammersley, S. S.
Penny, Frederick George


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Harland, A.
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Brown, Maj. D. C, (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Harrison, G. J. C.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Brown, Brig.-Gen.H. C. (Berks,Newb'y)
Hartington, Marquess of
Plelou, D. P.


Bullock, Captain M.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Burman, J. B.
Hawke, John Anthony
Price, Major C. W. M.


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Raine, W.


Butt, Sir Alfred
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Ramsden, E.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.



Campbell, E. T.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Rawlinson. Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel


Cassels, J. D.
Henniker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A.
Rawson, Alfred Cooper


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Rees, Sir Beddoe


Chapman, Sir S.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Hohier, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Rentoul, G. S.


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Rice, Sir Frederick


Clarry, Reginald George
Holland, Sir Arthur
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)



Homan, C. W. J.
Russell, Alexander West-(Tynemouth)


Clayton, G. C.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Rye, F. G.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Salmon, Major I.


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Horlick, Lieul-Colonel J. N.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Colfox, Major Wm. Philip
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney),


Conway, Sir W, Martin
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Cooper, A. Duff
Hume, Sir G. H.
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Cope, Major William
Huntingfield, Lord
Sandon, Lord


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.
Hutchison,G.A.Clark (Midl'n & P'hl's)
Savery, S. S.


Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Huffe, Sir Edward M.
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)


Crook, C. W.
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W)


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Jacob, A. E.
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)


Crookshank,Cpt.H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro)
Jephcott, A. R.
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Skelton, A. N.


Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)
Kidd, J, (Linlithgow)
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine,C.)


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
King, Capt. Henry Douglas
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Col. George R.
Smithers, Waldron


Drewe, C.
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Duckworth, John
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Spender Clay, Colonel H.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Loder, J. de V.
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F.(Will'sden, E.)


Edwards, John H. (Accrington).
Looker, Herbert William
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Elliot, Captain Walter E.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Ellis, R. G.
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Elveden, Viscount
Lumley, L. R.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


England, Colonel A.
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
MacIntyre, Ian
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Everard, W. Lindsay
McLean, Major A.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)




Thomson, Sir W.Mitchell-(Croydon,S)
Wells, S. R.
Womersley, W. J.


Tinne, J. A.
Wheler, Major Granville C. H.
Wood, B. G. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Turton, Edmund Russborough
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple
Wood, E.(Chest'r. Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Waddington, R.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).


Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)
Wood, Sir S. Hill-(High Peak)


Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Wragg, Herbert


Warrender, Sir Victor
Winby, Colonel L. P.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George



Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Watts, Dr. T.
Wise, Sir Fredric
Captain Gee and Mr. Lamb.

IMPERIAL INSTITUTE BILL.

Postponed Proceeding resumed.

Ordered, That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee of Five Members, Three to be nominated by the House and Two by the Committee of Selection.

Ordered, That all Petitions against the Bill, presented Three clear days before the meeting of the Committee, be referred to the Committee; that the Petitioners praying to be heard by themselves, their Counsel, or Agents, be heard against the Bill, and Counsel heard in support of the Bill.

Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.

Ordered, That, Three be the quorum.—[Commander Eyres Monsell.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

VETERINARY COLLEGE, GLASGOW (GRANT).

Motion made, and Question proposed, "
That this House do now adjourn."—[Commander Eyres Monsen]

Mr. MAXTON: I wish at the outset to state that T want to speak for a very short time upon a matter which interests purely the West of Scotland, and therefore anyone who is not interested in that part of the country may immediately withdraw. While it is a local question. it is one that is causing a very great degree of feeling in the West of Scotland—I refer to the act of the Scottish Office in intimating to the Glasgow Veterinary College that they will cease to have any grants from national sources within the next few months. This policy on the part of the Scottish Office will practically mean that Glasgow will cease to have its Veterinary College. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland knows all the circumstances
connected with this case. He also knows how great the agricultural interests are in the West of Scotland. He happens to represent a Glasgow constituency. I wish to impress upon him the desirability of not allowing his political influence to prevent him from doing justice to the whole of Scotland in this matter. It is not in the interests of Scotland that this centre of education should be removed from that great industrial centre the City of Glasgow. It stands right in the middle of a great agricultural area. As I pointed out on a previous occasion, it is an area which has contributed something substantial in the realm of animal rearing and breeding to British agricultural life.
Hon. Members are all aware of the famous breed of Clydesdale horses and Ayrshire cattle, and these have their names definitely associated with that area. The right hon. Gentleman is now telling us that we are not to be allowed this old educational centre for training men in the knowledge and care and welfare of the breeding of animals. We are not likely to accept that quietly. To tell us that Edinburgh is to be the only centre for this type of education, is to put a stigma on our part of the country which we are not going to accept lightly. I am not going to detain the House at any length. The Minister is well informed of all the facts, and he has a very definite and short answer. My only hope, in raising the matter here, is that I shall raise such a furore in the agricultural districts of Pollokshaws and Pollokshields—[Laughter]—that, in the course of the month or two before the death-knell of the college is finally sounded, he will see his way, perhaps, to looking at this in a more generous and a wider spirit. It is only a few hundreds of pounds from the national funds that is involved.
Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the benches opposite are supposed to be more particularly interested in the agricultural question than we, who are supposed to be the mere industrials, and I want to
put it to them that one of the important problems that this Government or some other Government has got to solve within the next few years is that of starting a flow-back of the industrial population into rural occupations; and if the right hon. Gentleman is going to do that in the case of the thickly populated industrial parts, he must have all available centres of education in rural interests and in agricultural matters. Now he is going to withdraw from our midst an institution which has had a very good and honourable record in the years that have gone by. For the sake of a few hundred pounds he is going to withdraw this from our midst, and leave us without this centre at all. I am reminded by my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) that I ought to say that practically all the local authorities in the West of Scotland—education authorities, county councils, town councils, parish councils—are united in the opinion that this college should be maintained. and the Government grant kept up, and I am perfectly certain that every West of Scotland Member in this House holds the same view. I am quite convinced that the right hon. Gentleman, as a Member of Parliament—if one could dissociate his Dr. Jekyll personality from his Mr. Hyde—as a mere Member of Parliament, and not as Secretary for Scotland, would also be an enthusiastic supporter of the continuation of the college. I am now going to give way, after having made this appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, and, over his head, to the electors of the great constituency that he represents, in order that some hon. Member of his own party may add his appeal to mine on this matter.

Sir WILLIAM ALEXANDER: Speaking for the first time in this House, I crave the indulgence which is traditional of it. It is singular to me that, in my first participation in the Debates of this House, I should be supporting the hon. Members in Opposition from the Clyde-side, but this is a question which has nothing to do, in my opinion, with politics. In my earlier years I was closely connected, in the West of Scotland. with the breeding of pedigree livestock, and, therefore, I may claim to be some authority on the work which has been carried out by the Veterinary College of Glasgow. The college was established, I believe, in the year 1860. It was incorporated as a Royal College,
in affiliation with the Royal Veterinary College and the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, in 1862, and I would point out to hon. Members in the House that the work that has been carried out by this College is really concrete and really in the interests of the West of Scotland. In the West of Scotland this college caters for one-half of the total population of Scotland. We have there the great agrarian interests, and we have to an enormous extent cattle-breeding and horse-breeding, in addition to which we have Glasgow as a port through which Canadian and Irish cattle are imported into Scotland. If the veterinary college in Glasgow is not necessary, then it is not necessary in Edinburgh. The Glasgow Veterinary College has been governed and controlled by a board of representative people, representing all the best interests in Glasgow and the West of Scotland. We have on the board representatives of the Glasgow Town Council, of the county councils and of educational authorities, all of which are financial contributors to the college. I do not-blame the present Secretary for Scotland for the attitude he has taken up in this matter. He has come into a legacy which has been handed down to him by a previous Government. Last year,. when I put a question to the then Secretary for Scotland as to the cost of centralising this institution in Edinburgh, I received the answer that the estimated cost of land and laboratories, including apparatus, was £17,550, that central laboratory accommodation for the association would be provided for in the Royal Veterinary College of Edinburg, and the cost of adapting premises within the college was estimated at £1,650. The expenditure for this purpose would be met from the grant of £150,000 provided under Section 3 of the Corn Production (Repeal} Act, 1921. The rent to be paid by the association had not yet been settled.
In view of the contributions from associations in Glasgow and from the public in Glasgow towards the Glasgow institution, and in view of the fact that there is to be an economical saving, I cannot from these figures discover that there will be any economical saving whatever, because, as I understand it, the Glasgow College at present receives from the Scottish Board of Agriculture a-bout
£600 per annum, and Glasgow College has been a pioneer in the matter of research and animal diseases. If it is the principle that the Board of Agriculture in Scotland shall disburse out of public funds a sum of close upon £20,000 for the establishment of a research department in Edinburgh, they had better take the matter into full consideration. I think they will find that in Glasgow they can do the job very much cheaper. There is undoubtedly in commercial affairs a natural element of centralisation. Centralisation when the elements arc opportune is undoubtedly good, but this organisation for the development of veterinary education is far removed from the centre of operations and from the centre where those beasts come in the greatest numbers, and I have no hesitation in saying that decentralisation in this case is the best principle. The people in Scotland who attend the Veterinary College in Glasgow are not people of capital. They have to come from the farming elements in Wigtonshire, Ayrshire and llenfrewshire, and if you are going to compel these students to go to Edinburgh and pay their fares to Edinburgh they will have to carry more than it is possible for them to carry. I hope that the Secretary for Scotland will reconsider this decision. I hope and believe that he will come to the decision that, if he cannot agree to the amalgamation without absorption of the Glasgow and Edinburgh Colleges, two colleges are necessary for Scotland.

Sir JOHN GILMOUR: The hon. Member who raised this question declared that it was one which interested the West of Scotland. In my judgment, it interests not only the West of Scotland but all Scotland, and it is largely because of that fact that the decision which had been taken by a previous Secretary for Scotland—not by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Fife (Mr. William Adamson), the late Secretary for Scotland, but by a more remote Secretary for Scotland—was arrived at Let
me, in a word, for it can only be a word, welcome the speech of the hon. Member for Central Glasgow (Sir W. Alexander). I am sure I am expressing all our views when I say that we hope we may hear him on a future occasion. It is never a very easy task, but is a distasteful task, to say "No" bluntly to one's friends. Hon. Members are aware that I have received a deputation lately on this subject. The decision which has been arrived at, and which was intimated to the Glasgow College two years ago cannot now be departed from. Briefly, the reason is this, that those of us who are interested in agriculture are deeply concerned in veterinary education, and it is essential that that should be of the best, and as in England and Wales there is only one college which receives the Government's direct support, and the same condition prevails in Ireland, so I am afraid it must be in Scotland. I do not take the view that this will cause harm to the agriculturists in the West of Scotland, nor will it be an end to the college as an agricultural college. I am willing and anxious to assist them in pursuing their agricultural avocation. When this problem was placed before me I was asked whether this would cease to be a central institution. So far as I am aware, it will not, and if local authorities desire still to give support to this agricultural college they will be at liberty to do so.
I am afraid that I can add nothing to the replies which I gave to the deputation which saw me at the Scottish Office. I can only add that I am awaiting the report which the deputation promised to send me with regard to the gap between the end of the financial year and the year of the college. That is the only problem which is outstanding, and it is one to which I will give very careful consideration.

It being half-past Eleven of the Clock, MR. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.